Cadillac CTS/CTS-V

merc1 · June 2003

Yes I can honestly say that the Ford 427 looks nothing like the CTS. That Ford looks like a Lincoln concept of about 2 years ago if anything. It's square and flat with very little in the way of sharp creases like the CTS.

Those comments said it looks worse than the CTS? Was that what you wanted me to read?

ctsjerry,

I'm really curious to know which Japanese cars you think look like a CTS. Seeing as how the Japanese have no style at all, in most cases.

M

oldsman01 · June 2003

Welcome back! I think the G35 looks like a watered down CTS, but so far no one has really copied the CTS. If anyone does, it will likely by Ford or Lincoln. Remember the 80 Seville with the "bustleback" rear end. What did the rear end of the 82 Lincoln Continental look like?

On a different note, this morning on the way to work I saw three diferent CTSs within my 20 minute commute. All three were in the oncoming lane, first one was black, second cashmere, and last one was Diamond white. The black one takes the cake! It simply looked sharp. The cashmere was okay, but not my choice of color. The white one also had the chrome wheels so there was alot of glitter and it looked pretty good, but I think black or dark blue are the CTS's best colors.

merc1 · June 2003

Now you'll have to tell me exactly which years of the Seville you're talking about. The last version of the bustle back was the one I like, and yes I do remember a Continental with a similar look.
A lot of people like the orginal 76'(?) Seville, but that one looked too much like a Chevy Nova to me. I liked the last one they made with that bustle back design.

So you're right there, but I'm not sure of the years, a Caddy expert will have to educate me on the years.

The G35 looks like a watered down CTS??? Oh my... I think you just like to stretch things for the sake of doing so, like you did in the XLR topic. There is no way the G35 with it's flat rear and rounded front looks anything like a CTS, watered down or not. The G35 Sedan isn't even mildly attractive to me, the CTS is.

M

b4z · June 2003

tyler80 posted this for me on cadillacforums.com.

http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/proddesc.jsp?year=2004&- amp;- amp;regionID=1&divisionID=5&type=0&vehicleID=328&- - section=col_trim&page=9&butID=3

Click on the highlighted color to see a sample.
It gives you an idea but the colors are a little off from what I think they would look like from a photo.

b4z · June 2003

Photoshopped CTS-V wagon. Looks good.
Scroll down on the home page.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/

jpnmass · June 2003

Thanks for that link on the colors. Not only does it have the colors available, but just about any other information someone interested in buying a CTS would need.

fjk57702 · June 2003

The first generation Seville was the 76-79 models, which were based on the Nova. The body was modified to the point where it was a K body. I though the proportions were done right so the car was a nice looking 4 door sedan. Nothing exotic though.

The second generation Seville was the 80 - 85 model years. This Seville was the first front wheel drive Seville and the body was based on the Eldorado/Riviera/Toronado body. This car had a bustle back (taken from some old Rolls/or? style). I thought that the front end (basic Eldorado) did not fit with the rear end. The basic styling problem was the front fenders which were too squared off.

The third generation Seville was the 86-91 models which were greatly downsized and looked very much like the small GM cars (Grand Am) rooflines. External styling was not bad but the interiors were not very good, with the dash/instrument panel poorly done.

The fourth generation Seville was the 92-97 model, which got the northstar V8 in 93. This is perhaps the best looking Seville of all. This was followed by the current generation based on the 95 Aurora body platform. The basic styling is the same but the body stucture is much stiffer.

The 2004 Seville will be last of the current generation. Then it moves to the sigma (CTS) platform. I think that the CTS styling could be better, but is not bad. Perhaps the STS will improve on the basic theme. The next generation CTS may get the station wagon, the current generation probably will not. The SRX is probably as close to a wagon as we will get for a while.

sevenfeet0 · June 2003

The first Seville was a nice and handsome car. My mother owned a '79 and I wish I still had that car. Despite its humble beginnings, it was a good automobile. However, the way it was built probably led to GM thinking that the Cimmaron was a good idea (another Cadillac built on Chevy underpinnings). The XLR also has Chevy underpinnings (Corvette), but it looks like GM is trying to avoid the platform-sharing mistakes of the past.

The bustle-back Sevilles of the early 80's reminds me a lot of the current Rolls Royce Phantom styling. The RR has rounded hindquarters but both have exaggerated squared-off front fenders with a tall grill. These Sevilles were certainly daring in styling, but not the best handling vehicles out there, even with the optional touring suspension. Lincoln Mark VII LSCs were much better handling automobiles.

The Sevilles (and Eldos) of the late 80s were the worst of the product line. I disagree with fjk57702; the styling of this series was so forgettable. And the interior appointments weren't good either. The size of the vehicles were tiny compared to what was expected by customers in the market for this nameplate. The original 4.1L V8 was...well, a joke (no power, reliability).

The Gen 4 Sevilles had (thankfully) great styling, a respectable interior and in '93, a kick-butt engine. The current Gen 5 cars came on in '98 and they were okay...but they don't compete with the other makes nearly as well as the previous car did a decade ago.

fjk57702 · June 2003

The first Seville may have started with the Nova platform, but the production Seville was considered a platform of its own. I don't think it came off a Nova assembly line (but I'm not sure). The Cimmarron was built on the same assembly line as the Cavalier and had minor changes - different grill, interior and so on. On the other hand the Cimmarron didn't cost much to put into production and sold at a rate of 25,000 for most of the 7 years that it was in production. The Catera did not sell as well for a much shorter production life.

mcgreenx · June 2003

Took my car in to get the leaky rear license plate surround replaced. They ordered the part, shown on the warranty invoice as a "Lens," priced at $510!!! I wonder if GM or the supplier of the defective parts bears the replacement, labor costs, or both.

b4z · June 2003

Didn't know GMTV had this feature.

Go to gmtv.feedroom.com and in the top left corner you will see a choice of channels.

Click on "New Vehicles"
Click on "More" until you see the 2004 CTS.

After you watch that click on "More" again and see the SRX and XLR videos.

Picture quality is very poor on all of these videos.

oldsman01 · June 2003

While Cadillac may be sharing Chevy components again with the XLR, at least they are taking from the top of the heap rather than the bottom(i.e. Cimmaron). The old J-body platform was never anything to write home about and to make a Cadillac out of it was a big mistake.

Merc, the "bustleback" Seville was 1980-85. I always liked the look of those cars and they were super plush inside, however, Cadillac really dropped the ball in terms of engineering and reliability. Whether it was the diesel, the V8-6-4 or the HT4100, that generation Seville had it. 1980 Sevilles could have the old 6.0 liter V8 in place of the diesel, otherwise that beautiful car was saddled with terrible engines.

fjk57702, I liked the 92 Seville when it came out and even today they are still sharp cars, but I like the tidier look of the current generation better. One problem with the 92-97 Seville was with the base(SLS) model. It's rear bumber valance wasn't as low as the STS's and as a result, the two muflers hung down in plain sight. Despite being a 5 year old design now, I still find the STS very attractive.

rob35cts · June 2003

What do you consider a leakey lisence plate bezel. Should it allow water behind it? Should it allow bugs behind it along the edges?

merc1 · June 2003

Ok thanks guys...it was the 1980-85 model that I liked so much then. One of my childhood friend's mom had one, it was black/grey or black/silver. I loved that car.

M

bingoman · June 2003

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I thought the bustlebacks were the ugliest cars ever created, and that includes the Lincoln and Chrysler version also. Apparently the public agreed as all three companies dropped the style at the end of their respective model runs.

As to the Cimmaron it started as a small underpowered non-agressive looking car, but by the end of the run in '88 it was the most powerful Cadillac in terms of power to weight, and acceleration. It may not have been a race car but it handled every day driving quite well. GM has had a bad habit of killing cars just about when the engineers have gotten out the bugs. I'm glad about all the bugs have been removed from the CTS before it was introduced.

tomcat630 · June 2003

The '88 Cimmy may have had bugs worked out, but it was still a joke.

b4z · June 2003

Gm spent a lot of money reengineering the platform to accept the 2.8L V6. It eventually trickled down to the Cavalier and other Jbodies.
I think it eventually had about 140 hp.

My personal feeling is that a true luxury car can't have a 4 cylinder.
The Saab and mercedes C-class would never be on my list.

No matter how much they refine it, or how many balance shafts they put in the block it will still not be as smooth as a V6 or V8.

sevenfeet0 · June 2003

for the scratches my wife inflicted on the car in the parking garage mishap. Also the day before I dropped the car off I noticed that the clocks were mismatched.

*Sigh*

Well, might as well kill two birds with one stone. Hopefully this will be the longest single stretch of time I'm without my car. We have a Deville as a rental for the time being, which is a very different car, especially after having a CTS for the last year. I can't believe I was a Deville owner. I could never go back, at least with this design. The DTS is nice, but the CTS wins my heart.

jemiller · June 2003

Define 'luxury car'.

There are expensive cars that make no pretense toward 'luxury' - Vipers, for instance. The Ferrari 360 Stradale. Or is being able to afford one the luxury in itself?

If you define 'luxury' as 'plush and soft', then the CTS doesn't qualify, neither do the majority of its competitors.

Is a fully-tarted 540i a 'luxury' car where a cloth-upholstery 520d is not? They're still the same structure, the same chassis, right pedal aside they feel more alike than different going down the road.

For many Americans 'luxury' means 'leather upholstery and lots of gadgets'. As far as I'm concerned, a solid structure and unflappable chassis are the greatest luxuries you can have in a car, and they're things that the vast majority of American 'luxury' cars have never had.

The Cimarron was an adequate car, but it was nothing that should have been sold under the Cadillac name.

fjk57702 · June 2003

For the 80 Seville (the bustleback) to look right, I think the front fenders needed similar lines. Instead they were squared off. The mis-match made for a horrid combination. The overly downsized 86 model was much better looking, except that the dash was bad. The Cimmarron was a cheap Cadillac, still was the Suburban Cadillac really any better?

oldsman01 · June 2003

When I was about 9 or 10 one of my friend's dad had one of those early 80s Sevilles. I remember the first time I rode in it, I thought it was absolutely the nicest car in the world. It had automatic climate contol, a cassette player, a comfortable back seat, and a digital speedometer. All things which cars my mom and dad drove(at that time) didn't have.

bingoman, the bustleback Seville sold pretty well, especially got a car that could list for over 20K in 1980 when optioned out. When the car was redesigned for 86, sales dropped. I do think the bustleback was sort of a fad and not something Cadillac could have carried on forever, but you do have to admit it was distinctive. The Lincoln and Chrysler(forgot that one) that had this trait did not look good at all. In fact, Chrylser only made the Imperial(the early 80s version) for a couple of years. As for the Cimmaron, they may have gotten the bugs out by the end, but the car was still no Cadillac. Even as a kid(which I was when the Cimmaron was on sale) I never thought it was a true Cadillac. I used to see one and would say "thats one of those small, cheap looking Cadillacs".

oldsman01 · June 2003

I assume you mean the Escalade by referring to the Suburban Cadillac. If your were talking about the first one(99-00) I would say no. But the new "Slade" is indeed a nice truck. And while yes it is Tahoe/Suburban based, the current GM full-size SUV platform is a pretty good structure. Again, my problem with the Cimmaron was not that it shared it's platform with a Chevy, but that it used the absolute cheapest and least refined platform GM had. And to top it off, Cadillac literally did nothing to make the car look any different than a Cavalier.

fjk57702 · June 2003

I was thinking the first Escalade. And, yes it has been upgraded. Still, the SRX is more what I would think a Cadillac buyer would want in an SUV.

rsteph · June 2003

A totally biased and 100% personal opinion only..but luxury car makers shouldn't be in the SUV business. I realize Escalades are nice rigs, and obviously people like 'em..you see them around quite a bit. The two concepts just don't go together in my mind ("luxury truck"). Next thing will be some logger bouncing around in the woods in a Cadillac 6-pack 4x4 covered in mud with a big old extra diesel tank in the back (if you've been in logging country, you know what I mean).

cu95 · June 2003

Took my CTS in for its first oil change. Had ~1200 miles on it. After this I'll probably go to a every ~3000 miles schedule, but I wanted to get that first oil change earlier, plus, I wanted them to put it up on the lift to look at the front end as recommended by some of you (I hit a nasty pothole at pretty high velocity). They said the front end was fine and the replacement center cap set me back only $16. I had noticed before taking it in that if you get down and look under the back bumper, the rubber fascia has three holes along its bottom edge that match up with three holes in a metal plate just above them. Clearly, some sort of fastener was intended. My bumper didn't have any. I mentioned to the service rep and asked if he knew if it was a conscious decision to leave them off. He said he'd check. Well, when he came back, the oil change was done and he said that they put in three "christmas tree" fasteners in the bumper. I'm curious if anyone else's bumper is lacking these fasteners or if mine was a fluke --build date is Jan '03. I did, ahem, tap a small sapling backing up the car a little while back and it's concievable that that could have snapped the fasteners, but I highly doubt it given how little force was involved --the sapling's flexibility allowed it to give when the bumper hit it-- and that there were no remnants of broken fasteners in any of the three holes (I was left with a couple very minor scratches on the rear bumper).

b4z · June 2003

August Motor Trend says 0-60 in 6.4 secs!
1/4 mile in 14.9 @ 92.72 mph.

Same as the Infinti G35.

So there!!

rayainsw · June 2003

Very interesting. I presume these are for a 3.6 auto. version of the '04?

MT gave the CTS 3.2 auto. numbers as: 0-60: 6.86 and 1/4 mile: 15.20 @ 90.70 in their comparison test vs. the G35 (6.21 - 14.61@95.67) and the 330i in their August 2002 issue.

- Ray
Waiting patiently for the Postal Service to deliver a copy of this issue . . .

wwhite2 · June 2003

then what were they getting from the manual ?

wwhite2 · June 2003

YOu are taking your CTS off-road LOL

wwhite2 · June 2003

Has been a great place for info the vids are better if you have DSL or cable . The CTS-V video is cool the the operation of the XLR top is wild

rayainsw · June 2003

Feb. '02: 0-60 = 7.0
1/4 = 15.3@89.7
Another test that I happen to have handy = R&T July 2002. CTS manual: 0-60 = 7.3
1/4 = 15.7@91.3

From the same R&T comparo. G35 (Auto.): 0-60 = 6.2
1/4 = 14.7@95.2

Interesting data points . . .

Cheers,
- Ray
Noticed a reported (estimated) top speed in R&T of 147 mph for the CTS manual - hmmmmm . . .

oldsman01 · June 2003

Not too shabby, I think my bet was somewhere in the 6.3-6.5 range.

mcgreenx · June 2003

First, I wrote that the ordered replacement part was called a "lens." In fact, it is referred to on the invoice as a "lamp," I suppose because the part, by whatever name, includes the backup lamps. Or perhaps they ordered the wrong part, which I think is probably unlikely. The unit price, $510, is consistent with what has been mentioned here by others.

Second, moisture is easily visible inside the component, droplets on the inside surface. If you got it, you'll see it. The problem is supposedly due to a defective batch of parts and doesn't affect current builds. Mine is pre-Sept. 2002, but I don't know when the fix was made. I noticed seeds from trees, etc., especially along the bottom edge, but I didn't look closely enough to determine if they were inside the "lamp" or merely in the open space between the component edge and the trunk lid. Looks more like they simply get into the crevice and are difficult to wash out. Perhaps the replacement will solve that problem, but I kinda doubt it.

b4z · June 2003

I am always wary of the first performance numbers because those are usually preproduction cars that have had their engines blueprinted.

I would be happy if the car did it in 6.7-6.8 in the real world because that would be a full second quicker than my Intrigue.

mannytranny · June 2003

Did they give you an estimate on how long til the new part arrives? My CTS is June 2002 and the problem has been getting worse and worse. Now there is so much trapped moisture inside that it is very apparent to anyone who goes by the car. The part was ordered well over a month ago and I was told yesterday that it could still be several more weeks til the part is available. I was also told that the cost is close to $600.
The moisture seemed to disappear after several days in the sun but now with 98º weather it is still trapped there and not going away. Even more bugs and debris are showing up. Looks disgusting!

cu95 · June 2003

Does anyone else experience this?: The volume adjusts in distinct increments (by design), which is fine except that there is an incremental step that seems too large. There's a volume setting that is a little softer than I'd like for typical driving conditions, but when I click to the next increment it seems to make a fairly noticable jump and then is somewhat too loud. At other places on the volume spectrum, the increments seem tighter together. It's irrelevant whether the adjustment is made on the radio knob or the steering wheel knob. I can't decide if there is something wrong or if I'm just being sensitive about the volume increment that lies near --but not exactly on-- my ideal point.

wulf007 · June 2003

I stopped by a small local Cadillac dealership yesterday to get delivery schedules and other information on the 04 CTS, SRX, and Escalade. A week ago they were kind enough to let me see a new SRX that Cadillac provided them for few hours for training purposes. Didn't get to sit or ride in it, just look at it. Anyway, don't know if the sales rep knows what he is talking about, but he said his dealership is scheduled to get the 04 CTS around mid to late September and all the first models shipped will be with the 3.2 engine. They are not scheduled to get models with the 3.6 engine until November. Coincidently, that is when they are scheduled to get the new SRX, which will also be with the 3.6 engine. The V8-AWD model SRX will be available later. He emphasized that the scheduling could change but that is what they are being told right now. He said the CTSV won't be available until February or March 04 at the earliest. He also said they have been told by Cadillac that there will be very little negotiating room on the CTSV and SRX. He is worried that will effect sales here in California because thanks to Governor Davis and the tax and spend legislature, the car registration fees have just been tripled on top of the 8.5% to 8.75% sales tax. Means you can add approximately $1800 to $2400 to the price of the vehicle for registration and license fees. BTW, the MSRP on the SRX, which was nicely equipped (with V8) but apparently not full loaded, was $58K.

bigdaddycoats · June 2003

How did you get the August Motor Trend already???

mannytranny · June 2003

I just got to see the SRX right before the demonstrator from Michigan was leaving the dealership.Base price is about $38,000. I did see the fold down seats, but he had to show me the headlight washers. (no wipers). I asked why no wipers and he said that the spray comes out with enough force that while driving the headlight lenses just get clean and dry nicely. He thought it was cool!The sun roof or moon roof is just so large.
     The only thing that he mentioned about the CTS V was that the cars won't show up at dealers until late Jan.
     The local dealer has a 2004 CTS with the 3.6 engine but won't show it off yet til they move more of the 2003. They have 5 2003s left, most of which are fully loaded autos with great deals. He also said that manual trans are in higher demand right now because there will be none available until the CTS V and much later production of the 2004 CTS.
     They had to search for a 2003 with a manual trans for a local Dr. and had to go to 6 dealers before one would dealer trade . They want to hold on to the manuals.
     The 3.6 engine is very quiet while idling ( he started it ) and he said that it was surprisingly fast. It is silver with a two tone interior. Dash looks similar but the cruise is no longer on the steering wheel. A gauge is visible and not a clock in the dash (Yeah!)I may have to go back because they have it in a secure area not visible to the public and the salesman could stay there and I couldn't be there alone. No test drives yet. He expects two more in a few weeks.A red and a blue.

tornado25 · June 2003

Dash looks similar but the cruise is no longer on the steering wheel.
_________________________________
Acck. Why would they move a control like that, which is well liked by most people in my experience? Please don't tell me it will be dumped on cheapo multi-function stalk!

mannytranny · June 2003

You guessed it! It's on the left stalk!

b4z · June 2003

I never said I actually saw the August Motor Trend. LOL.

http://www.cheersandgears.com/boards/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5958

fjk57702 · June 2003

I expect mine to arrive in the mail soon.

automole · June 2003

cu95, my wife and I have both noticed the same thing. It's annoying because one 'notch' is too soft and when you turn it to the next 'notch' it's too loud. What's AS annoying or more so, is that there is a slight delay when choosing tracks on the CD in which it mutes the very start of the song and quickly fades in. Also,the rewind and f-forward buttons are virtually useless as the response time is agonizingly slow. To top things off I hate Bose and think the stereo sounds like crap although for a stock car stereo I guess it's pretty decent...a good thing since I'm stuck with it due to it's integration with the car.

Fortunately, my gripes about the car (including the stereo) are minor! Other than a few irritating 'features' the CTS is an INCREDIBLE car.

On another note, did I hallucinate the post linking to the GM site with all the cool CTS-V videos?? It seems to have disappeared???

http://gmtv.feedroom.com/notenabled.jsp?miss=wrfb&fr=062503_1- 15930_171570xf5fef4680axw5ad9

rfdevil1 · June 2003

My copy arrived in today's mail. I also saw a copy on a news stand so if it's not there today it should be there shortly. B4Z is right with the #s but MT says the new motor "doesn't yet match the standards set by infinit's more powerful 3.5 or BMWs silken in-line sixes". We'll see. Also say it is on sale currently.

wwhite2 · June 2003

It's interesting that dealers are holding on to their in stock manuals instead of trading them . Looks like there may be a premium on the manual?? That would invalidate a lot of posted theory that the manuals were a no sell and dealers couldnt get rid of them

pmdriver · June 2003

Hi everyone, great to check in again and still see a high level of enthusiasm for your cars. We're glad you're enjoying them. I hope it's o.k. with you guys, I've brought up this forum in some of our meetings to give an example of the true enjoyment owners are getting out of the CTS, and the fact that most of your annoyances are being addressed. It does mean a lot to our team that in the end, people who commit to the car by writing a check are happy with the purchase. By the way, I just got back from the Nurburgring with the V and I can't wait for a group like you to get your first drives in this thing. It is a hoot! Who'd of thought and extra 180hp would feel so right!

mcgreenx · June 2003

They didn't say how long it is expected to take to get the "Lamp/surround," but I didn't ask. Hope it's not too long. I suspect there are a lot to supply.

The unit cost of $510 plus labor for the initial inspection to determine if a warranty replacement is necessary, and to remove and replace, would probably be well above $600.

mannytranny · June 2003

I just can't wait for a manual trans CTS V. Anyone interested in getting a car to my dealer so I can drive it? I would be willng to run a month long drive test.

I just love my 2003 CTS with the manual trans but I would even like a CTS V better!

bingoman · June 2003

cu95 I just checked my rear fascia and found the three christmas tree fastener in place. If all of yours where missing I would suspect that someone goofed at the factory and failed to insert them. I doubt that all three would break without leaving a considerable mark on the bumper.

Tornado, the position of the cruise control on the bottom of the steering wheel was a very bad ergonomic mistake to begin with. Do you really want to be feeling along the bottom of the wheel at 80 mph or so in order to engage cruise, or would you like to take your eyes off the road in order to find the buttom. I surely do not like to. I think that location was a worse engineering choice than the clock on the dashboard instead of a temperature gauge. Just my opinion, but i've been driveing for fifty years.

Cadillac CTS/CTS-V

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles