Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Is there any way we can get the Xenon headlights seperated from the 1SB package?
I want a 1SA with the PDX Sport Package and Xenons.
Thanks.
http://www.bmwm5.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=316- - 45&perpage=20&pagenumber=3
Sent an email sometime back to one of the marketing contacts in the CTS-V press release, suggesting if he wanted to send one out to NorCal we could probably get our local collection of 15-20 M5 owners (and a few M3, 540i, and S4/S6 types) together to look it over. Not sure if I really expected a response, but didn't get one.
Looking forward to getting my hands on one sometime anyway...
Speaking of which, we all are drooling over the idea of getting our hands on a CTS-V as well. My only suggestion would be to please get an automatic in this car eventually, even if it takes a little while. In my case, my legs are too long to deal with three pedels effectively in this car, but I'm sure that other people will have their reasons for choosing an automatic, even in a car like this.
Of course, if we could get a paddle shifter, then no one would complain! :-)
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,
___________________________________________
I agree. I wasn't really thinking of it that way and/or wasn't aware that's where the buttons were before. On other cars I've had or driven, the cruise buttons were up more in the center (between the air bag and the sides of the steering wheel).
On most Chryslers, that's how it was set up with audio controls "underneath" your fingers, so to speak. I still think cruise on the stalk is a very bad idea. To me, they should have kept them on the wheel, but located them better.
Thanks for responding, now I know I'm not crazy. Unfortunately, it sounds like I didn't just end up with a bad volume adjust that a replacement radio could solve.
bingoman,
The service rep made the same comment about the fasteners, speculating that it was a factory oversight. Of all the things to forget to install, that's probably as harmless as they come. Hopefully my CTS has all of its other parts. :-)
re: cruise control
I agree that I've seen better on-wheel cruise control controls, but the CTS has already used the most desirable real estate on the wheel for the radio controls and 4 customizable buttons, and I wouldn't want to give those up. The spacing and shape of the cruise control buttons at the bottom could have been better I think, but I still like them there versus having them on a stalk. Plus, after a few uses, I can now manipulate by feel so looking down from the road shouldn't hopefully occur.
Of course, if we could get a paddle shifter, then no one would complain! :-) " - sevenfeet0
What he said!!!
Thanks,
- Ray
Oncy six feet tall - but with other reasons . . .
04 CTS
silver smoke
3.6
sport package
I was told 6-8 weeks from time I order. MSRP of 34410. $30600 with GM discount. So, do I get one now or wait for the manual with the 3.6?
I was going to play the game and wait
till August to order. I would count on it coming in during October. There would be incentives as there usually are during that time of year.
In other words GM figured out how to cut cost and still bring in the performance.
Refinement usually suffers when cost is the overriding goal.
What I am concerned about is that the Nissan motor has had several negative comments made about it in regards to high rpm refinement.
Some mags have felt that at 287 hp it is maxxed out and geting a little rough on the high end.
One would think that Cadillac would have set the bar higher.
I am making these comments without having seen the mag reviews or driven the car.
I wonder if the start of the SRX production slowed things down.
50 SRX's were produced this week.
It's very difficult to build an oversquare 60-degree V6 that *isn't* smooth. Anyone who's griping about the smoothness of the Nissan VQ35 really ought to get a life.
Unlike, say, the old Quad4 POS - there's a clear example where GM took the cost-cutting too far, an inline-four over 2 liters *must* have balance shafts. That engine had many other problems, but even if it'd been decently reliable it'd still have been completely unacceptable from an NVH standpoint.
Back to the 3.6L V6. Remember, it's not a Cadillac engine, it's going in Holdens and Buicks and eventually a bunch of other vehicles as well. It's basically replacing the 3.8L pushrod Buick V6 and eventually others as well.
The Malibu is first with the 3.5L 200hp.
Then there will be a 3.9L with 240 hp.
Personally I would like to see the 3.6L available as an option across the entire GM midsize line.
It would make the Impala one hell of a cop car.
Put a 3.45 gear in the GP and a FWD 5 speed auto and you have a car that is much more refined and quicker than the current GTP.
Having driven a manual transmission for so many years I'm amazed at how many people insist on one for 'performance'. The new automatics are great IMO (the CTS's especially) and offer plenty of performance for stoplight drag racing. -Just my biased opinion.
It won't be too much longer that you will be telling us that the CTS is being replaced by a minivan.
Or maybe you can arrange it so the wife gets the minivan and you get the CTS.
A manual trans gives the driver a real feel and connection with the car that is missed in an auto. I feel that I am one with the car and not just along for the ride. I tend to leave my drag racing however to the dragstrip. I do use 1st gear at a traffic light to have some fun with the cars aside of me.
I have only driven a manual trans and had to use a rental while my CTS was being serviced. I had a chance to drink beverages, eat a sandwich, use cell phones, and scream at back seat drivers and comb my hair, clean my sunglasses, pulling out a stuck cassette tape, dust the dash and remove pieces of lint from the passenger's seat, all in traffic. What fun it was!
I wonder how people functioned when there were only manual transmissions for the majority of cars.. I guess that driving was just driving........point A to point B.......and no..........
I was told by a Cadillac salesperson that a luxury car has an auto trans and that a sport model comes with a manual trans. That means that my CTS with a luxury pkg. but with a manual trans is not a luxury car at all so I should expect to get to do all the extra luxurious things.
I will just have to wait for a CTS V.
Just IMO.
Yes, a slushbox is better for stoplight drags, but I don't really do that; what matters to me is which works better lapping Thunderhill or carving up secondary roads.
I don't love clutch pedals, but there's very few torque-converter-coupled automatics that produce the degree of control you get with something that's purely a mechanical coupling.
Further, to make the whole thing work decently with an automatic, they'd need 5 or 6 ratios in the slushbox, something that doesn't seem to be on GM's plate. I suppose they could go out and buy ZF 6HP26s like BMW and Jaguar...
...which brings up two closing points. First, the kickdown behavior of many automatic transmissions these days is abysmal. I want the transmission to be down a gear (or two) as soon as the gas pedal has moved an inch. Like, IMMEDIATELY. Not sure if this is a CAFE issue or something else unique to the US market (two recent slushboxes I've driven in Australia did *not* have this problem) but it's a source of great annoyance.
Secondly, the CTS-V is not intended to be a car for everyone, or for all uses. Where do you draw the line? First it's an automatic, then you'll have people asking for a softer ride and complaining the big tires wear out too quickly, or that the seats are too aggressive for them.
If GM acted on every criticism you'd have a car completely devoid of focus, lacking the crisp edge it needs to compete in the NARROW segment it's intended to sell to.
GM still has to prove that it *can* produce a focused, sharp, capable product.
That's pretty much in a nutshell the whole reason not to want a slushbox. It never works the way you want it to. No control over what it does. Feels disconnected. Feels cheap. Breaks down.
BTW, what does having a kid have to do with having an auto vs. a stick? If your kid is in a car seat in the back belted in, and you're supposed to be paying attention to the road 100%.......it should not make a difference whether you have a stick or auto.
I have a grandson, by my youngest step-son, that has become my best buddy. He is the reason we traded my Vette for a CTS, to get a second car for transporting the baby. While we don't get to see him as often as I would like, each visit is a trip into wonderment.
Nothing is more important than your child! View each day as an experience in learning, for as you teach your child, you will learn new things from him/her(not sure if it's a boy or girl).
The little boy two doors down, brings my Sunday paper to the door every Sunday. He's 2 years old and a flower person. He always has a dandelion for his mom or my wife. Last week we got wet together under his "Elmo" lawn sprinkler. It was cold, but fun.
My grandson loves mechanical things and will open and close a water bottle to see how the cap works. If you look closely, you can see how their mind works as they figure out how to sit up, crawl, walk and later on, ask for your car keys. Enjoy and have fun.
Congratulations!
Rich
I agree that I also don't understand the correlation between 'baby' and 'automatic'.
Just don't tell him those superior makes, Rolls Royce, BMW, etc use those SUPERIOR GM automatics.
As well as other GM innovative parts..........
Ask him about the many failures of those SUPERIOR toyota autos. mated with the V-6s in a camry or lexus..................LOL
My Intrigue was like this. Cruise exactly at 30 mph. put your foot in to it. Wait 2 seconds then it would kickdown into 1st so hard that it would sometimes chirp the tires.
Surprised the hell out of me the first time it hapened.
Surprised a whole lot of guys in so called fast cars after I found that sweet spot.
I can't see how the delay then the extremley hard hit could be good for the transmission.
i do know that all modern cars retard the timing right before the upshift.
Used by Rolls Royce as sojaab posted.
Eating ,phoning and babies are not supposed to be distracting while driving
Wonder if we will see that soon on the remaining '03 CTS's?
The truth of the matter is that I exaggerate in order to make a point. Sure, you should be paying attention to the road if you have a baby in the car...and sure, you should be able to drive a manual transmission just fine even if you do have a baby. I could get by just fine with a baby and a manual CTS-V (and I might do just that) but the truth is I'd prefer an auto. Whether you realize it or not it's much easier managing a baby while driving an auto.
Oh, and we all know that we would NEVER EVER EVER drag race another car at a stoplight; the CTS-v is to be used to its full potential at the RACETRACK ONLY!
Driving in stop and go traffic really does get old fast with a manual tranny car...having a baby only adds to the confusion...my opinion, end of story.
As for automatics being unreliable...name a few!
Another reason for my automatic preference is that I like a manual tranny for the first few thousand miles when everything is new...after awhile the pressure plate and clutch disc wear and it's not as much fun to drive. I HATE replacing clutch parts and I guarantee if you have a manual transmission you'll be having work done on it before you'd have to do anything with an automatic. Just my opinion.
Agreed about clutches, some cars (and some drivers) do far better on this front than others.
BMW used the 4-speed GM automatic in US-market cars for a while because of low US speeds, the rest of the world got 5-speed ZF boxes. The US finally went to 5-speed boxes a few years back, some ZF, some GM.
The Turbo 400 is certainly beefy, but the world has moved long past three-speed and, for that matter, mostly past four-speed automatics too. The ZF 6HP26 gets you six forward gears with a lower parts count than the 5HP24, not sure if they actually sell it to mfrs cheaper. Mercedes is hopping straight from 5 to 7 gears for their big V8s and V12s.
My put on manual transmissions is simply that. . .they're simple. They rarely break, and if used properly, the clutch will last well over 75K miles. The people who like them best treat shifting gears much like breathing -- it's absolutely no deal whatsoever, let alone a big one. Riding a bicycle and having driven a Class 8 truck for a few years has left me with the concept that shifting two or three times just to get across an intersection is not a problem. Driving in Phoenix rush-hour traffic with a manual involves lots of shifting, which I don't find onerous.
Clearly the American public feels differently, and many otherwise excellent vehicles are never going to be driven by me since they don't provide a manual (I'm sure they're losing sleep over this). Cadillac appears to be supporting the manual concept for the time being, but I can assure you that the only other American competitor not only doesn't, but doesn't want to hear from anyone who does.
The clear lesson of the past forty years is that Ford and GM spent decades scrimmaging with one another while the rest of the world's auto industries went trotting on past.
Staying in the same blinkered mindset would be the quickest route to irrelevance.
Did I say that? Really my reason(s) for not wanting an automatic is 60% in-town driving in congested traffic, 5% baby, 10% clutch deterioration over time, and 25% Starbucks double-tall mocha.
Again, I should have been more clear when I said "name a few unreliable automatics"...I should have narrowed the criteria by saying "name a few unreliable automatics that exist in any rear wheel drive car that I would possibly consider buying and/or is in the same class as the CTS". The K-car and Taurus are a bit of a stretch, aren't they? I hear that Yugo didn't make very good transmissions either...
I've got to give credit to you guys for making this an interesting discussion board!
Understand the Accord is having it's fair share of problems too.
Manuals don't bother me in stop and go traffic if I am driving 4 cylinder car. Their clutch pedals are so light that you barely have to think about what you are doing.
My Camaro's clutch pedal is another matter.
I imagine with 400 hp. the CTS-V's will not be the lightest either.
Manual transmissions are much more durable than autos, even as autos improve. If you are good to a clutch you can get 150K to 200K from it . and you dont have to rebuild the transmission as you would with an automatic . the same scenario with an automatic would be that you would only have to change the torque converter ......and how often does that happen
To reiterate what you said about manual longevity.
I put my first and only clutch in at 105,000 miles for $400.
I now have 205,000 miles. No other work done on it.
And I am a hard driver.
Most of the problems with the T5 were the fork bending and problems with 5th gear.
The T56(CTS-V tranny) has had issues with noise (rattling) and under high horsepower conditions the clutch not wanting to release.
Also the clutches don't tend to last as long on the t56 due to the higher horsepower they are handling.
I have heard of people replacing their's at 40,000 miles.