"The problem with the CTS is that it will never be as communicative and responsive to the likes of the BMW and Audi because it is not engineered to do so."
Audi? Surely you jest. The CTS has a nearly 50/50 weight distribution and RWD layout which you wont find in any Audi. I've never heard anyone suggest that the STS and CTS were lacking when compared to Audis. The CTS was developed to compete with German cars and much of its development happened in Germany. I dont know where you are getting your info about CTS development. The CTS was the first of many GM models to get extensive time at the Ring during development.
The CTS is larger and heavier than the 3 series and thus isnt likely to be as nimble. I don't know that its lacking compared to the 5 series though. Many seem to feel the curretn 5 is somewhat less connected than the last gen model, especially with the silly active steering.
"Have you ever driven one of these BMW babies for any length of time?? This car is like putting on a set of wheels, chassis and engine and hooking it to your brain. The best is when you drive something else and you are at a loss!! "
I have driven the last gen 540, 328, 330, X5 and the current 530. Again, away from a racetrack I would be hard pressed to find any definitive advtantage. The steering is heavy and precise, but that applied the old Cadillac Catera I drove as well. Sorry, but the qualities that exist in BMWs can be had in other cars.
I have driven the CTS as well. There are very few RWD american cars but the STS and CTS are definitely capable. I wouldnt try to compare FWD american family sedans to BMWs with RWD that cost thousands more.
"Staying out of the 5/CTS comparo mostly, I can say that Caddy hasn't yet proved they can do a world class interior, so I'll be very, very surprised if the '08 will turn my head in that regard."
Pics of the CTS interior are widely available on the net, including here at edmunds. why dont you look at the pics before saying you wont be impressed. And yes, people have been inside the car and verified the materials are top notch. I have to wonder how any car enthusiasts has missed the positive reaction to the CTS. As for Caddy interiors: check the '08 CTS, DTS, Escalade, XLR, and '07 SRX before stating Caddy cant design a nice interior. The CTS is the only bad interior in the bunch.
I wouldnt equate Art and Science to the gangster-mobile 300 styling at all. Just because they both use large grilles doesnt mean they have anything in common. I dont see anything over the top about the STS (many feel its too conservative), SRX, DTS or XLR. the '08 CTS is many things, but "cartoonish" isnt one of them. The general consensus is that the car looks very good. Even the design critic at Automobile who hates most everything he reviews was gushing over the car. If you think the CTS is ugly I do wonder what luxury cars you find attractive.
I dont equate bland with attractive but you seem to be critical of Caddy designs because they are bold and stand out. would you prefer if Caddy when the lexus route and copied German designs?
I've never heard anyone suggest that the STS and CTS were lacking when compared to Audis.
Okay, the CTS is severely lacking compared to an A3 or A4. The CTS is heavy, large, numb, overpriced and understeers too much, while feeling cheap throughout. I regret every moment I've spent driving a CTS.
Caddy's styling has worked for them, as I said. It doesn't work for me. Hard edges and straight lines don't do much for me; I prefer a good deal more flow to my automotive shapes.
As far as copying goes, I think Toyota picked up surface cues from BMW, but the main bulk of the current styling genre seems to have borrowed more from other Japanese, who were copying Germans, but got it by way of an impaired Italian translator.
Of all in the entrylux and beyond classes, I think Audi has the best eye to real exterior design, and that's even with the absurd nose. Certainly I find their interiors to be the benchmark for which to aim. To the point, clean and well-executed.
"Sorry, but there is no subsantive reason to pay $10k more for a German luxury car vs a Cadillac or Lexus. German automakers have convinced Americans that their vehicles are worth a hefty premium over other luxury cars when there is nothing to back up this premium in terms of warranty, dealer service, reliability, performance, etc."
First, don't even think about putting Cadillac and Lexus in the same sentence as if they have something in common vs. German cars. Nice attempt at association, but that's like me saying my golf game has more in common with Tiger Woods' than Phil Mickelson's because I'm right handed.
Second, there is no "substantive" reason in the world that anyone should pay any more than $25,000 for a CTS. My 2004 Acura TL 6-speed cost $32,400 new and is now worth (30,000 miles), according to Edmunds, $24,600 on trade-in value. That's a total of $7,700 in depreciation. A 2004 CTS with 30,000 miles is worth a measily $18,300 in trade in value and had an MSRP of over $40,000 (without many features the TL had as standard equipment). If you add $7,700 in depreciation to the value of a CTS, a new one should have cost $25,000 to be fairly priced against a TL. And that's assuming one can get past the butt ugly looks. :confuse:
The reason Cadillacs aren't worth crap as 3-4+ year old used cars is .... well they really aren't worth a whole lot more than that new. It's just that some poor people actually think that by going cheap up front, they are saving money. My 12 year old Nissan Maxima with 155k miles is worth more than most GM's, including Cadillacs, that are half it's age with half the mileage. And it looks and runs better.
Forget a BMW 3 series or 5 series, a three year old CTS with 30,000 mile would have actually cost you as much or more in depreciation than a Porsche 911S with MSRP of well over twice as much. Doesn't necessarily make me feel less guilty driving my 911S, just a boatload smarter.
A little research on AutoTrader.com on used vehicles shows me that 75% of 3 series sedans being sold that are 2004 or newer have automatics. Even Bimmer drivers mostly opt for the auto. True, the IS should offer a stick but then again most drivers wouldn't choose it anyway.
I have driven the last gen 540, 328, 330, X5 and the current 530. Again, away from a racetrack I would be hard pressed to find any definitive advantage. The steering is heavy and precise, but that applied the old Cadillac Catera I drove as well. Sorry, but the qualities that exist in BMWs can be had in other cars.
I guess you aren't a real driving enthusiast since you really can not tell the difference. Don't get me wrong. I respect all of your view points. To each his own.
However, the entire CTS package doesn't even come close to urging me to test drive the car, let alone for many, many miles.
Those resale generalizations are true for most American cars--even most of the Cadillac sedans. However, the CTS doesn't have that horrible a resale--especially for an American car. BMW's have good residuals. However, ask anyone that BOUGHT a 330i how much of a depreciation hit they took. The 3 Japanese cars definitely win the resale side.
Looks are subjective. Fun factor (also subjective)--the BMW wins. I've actually driven most of the cars in this segment. That LARGER CTS is more fun to drive than the smaller Lexus IS 350. Service? The best service is a car that only has to go in for routine maintenance. The sales guy at my local BMW *bragged* about the number of loaner cars they had available. That didn't inspire confidence in the reliability of the car. Your mechanic friend is stuck in the past.
OW, IMHO, you should at least test drive the CTS, the A4, the 3 series, the new C class (no one is talking about that redesign), the G35, etc. As much I love the exterior looks of the CTS, I would consider myself an incomplete shopper if I didn't at least test the G35, the TL, the IS, the 3 series, etc.
I guess we do a new car around this time every year. Last year it was the IS vs. the 3 series. Now it's the not even released CTS. Hehe...
Of all in the entrylux and beyond classes, I think Audi has the best eye to real exterior design, and that's even with the absurd nose. Certainly I find their interiors to be the benchmark for which to aim. To the point, clean and well-executed.
Hey.... I like my A3's nose! :P :surprise:
I like everything about my A3 Sport Package 2.0T. Including the fact that I haven't had any mechanical/electrical issues in 12.5K miles.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
First off, let’s lose the bilge water about what auto rags have written. They far too often stack the deck one way or another for their opinions to really mean much as a general statement.
“Its not about CTS apologists. Its about you disregarding a lot of evidence that the CTS is a decent RWD sports sedan because you personally dont like it. Sorry, but you should take up your beef with the auto writers whos said the car was a legit contender to the 5 series when it came out in 2002. Nothing you say can prove the CTS is an also ran sports sedan so lets just agree that you dont like the car and could care less about its merits.”
A decent RWD sports sedan? Like I said earlier, compared to an Accord, maybe so, compared to a 3-Series or a 5-Series, not happening. As for my not personally liking the CTS, uhhh, well, after driving it, it wasn’t hard. FWIW, shortly after I bought my 2002 530i 5-Speed, I took a drive in a CTS. I have no idea who or what opined that the CTS was a legit contender, but I have to question its motives. Those two cars were as different as night and day and there is no way the CTS of that era was even qualified to sniff the fumes of the 530i.
You keep equating my critical opinions of the CTS because I don’t like it. The point you’re missing is that I didn’t initially like it because besides being ugly inside and out, the early version of the CTS that I drove was a poorly executed, noisy rattle trap that had sloppy handling, an anemic engine, crappy ergonomics and uncomfortable seats. Yeah, I didn’t like it, and for good reason too.
”You are saying the the IS was way too small but the 3 series was spacious? OK, thats the first I've heard of that.”
Obviously you have yet to take a look yourself. IIRC, bluebuydotcom posted a picture of his legs first inside of an IS and then inside of an E90. Those pictures illustrated what my kids found out very well. In this case, even the paper specs agree. Don’t believe me? Look it up.
”You say you value manual trannies and the CTS has one but you are trashing the CTS. Interesting.”
You’re pretty funny. The first couple of times I went into a Cadillac dealership to drive a manual CTS I had the sales person actually tell me that I didn’t really want to drive a manual. When pressed, I was told by the salesman from both dealerships that not only did they not have any manual CTSs in stock, they’ve never even had one in and never would. At that point I had nothing left to lose, so I asked about ordering one. Once again, in both cases the dealerships refused to even consider the option, “We won’t order one because we know that you don’t really want a manual transmission and that in the end, you’ll stick us with the car and demand an Automatic version instead.”
FWIW, just about a year ago I did manage to happen upon a dealership that had a 6-Speed in stock and they were only too happy to let me drive it, I suppose the figured they’d finally found a sucker to unload it on, anyway, it drove okay, and while the transmission was smoother and easier to shift than the one in my 1970 Challenger, it was still stiff and clunky compared to the tranny in the E60. That said, I believe that both transmissions are made by Getrag, so I’m at a loss to explain the difference. Shifter maybe?
Other thoughts on last years’ drive of the CTS; the interior looked about as horrid as the early cars that I drove, however, at least it was screwed together better and had much better fit. The engine had also been dramatically improved over the early models, so much so that I’d even go so far as to say that it was competent. Not as smooth as an I6, but then no V6 is so no loss there. That said, the car’s suspension was still sloppy, the seats were still uncomfortable, and the ergonomics still weren’t ergonomic.
”Most people like the new CTS interior. Do you read any online or print car mags?”
Ummm, do you rely on the car magazine for all of your opinions? I mean really, who gives a crap what a car magazine says?
”I am merely agreeing with what many respected experts have said after seeing the car at the NAIAS.”
No, I think that you’re parroting the scribes who regurgitate the marketing bilge fed to them by the auto companies.
”You are the first anti domestic guy (and there are thousands here on Edmunds) to say with a straight face (i assume) that the new CTS is ugly and you arent impressed in any way.”
Me? Anti domestic? Hmmm, well, we currently have two domestic cars in our garage, and my wife is considering upgrading her daily driver with yet another domestic. A car by the way, pointed out to her by me. Also, I’m actually proud to admit that I like the 300, go figure.
”Wow. I guess if Bangle had designed it you would have been on board though.”
Clearly you’re either new around here or you haven’t been paying attention. I was and still am one of the first and loudest critics of the bangalized cars. I like the looks of say the E60 better than say the CTS or the Aztek, but that ain’t sayin’ much.
Oh, and FWIW, the same day I drove the CTS 6-Speed last year, I drove an A3 2.0T 6-Speed. Yikes, what a difference. Even though I’m not even remotely a fan of FWD cars, I’d take a FWD A3 over the CTS in a heartbeat.
If you're going to make bold statements about beating BMW at their own game (and the Lexus management made just such statements), you'd better back that up with all of the trimmins, manual transmissions included.
shipo, read my post again. I said they should have offered it but because they didn't doesn't make their car irrelevant. Do the same trick on AutoTrader with a 3rd gen TL or a G35 or an A4 and you'll see even less of those models have manual transmissions. I've got nothing wrong with a manual tranny. It's jsut not what Joe or Jane are buying most of the time.
Oh, and FWIW, the same day I drove the CTS 6-Speed last year, I drove an A3 2.0T 6-Speed. Yikes, what a difference. Even though I’m not even remotely a fan of FWD cars, I’d take a FWD A3 over the CTS in a heartbeat.
Would I dare say you'd even take a DSG A3 (which I love the pure speed of; even though it is known you like to have a 3rd pedal in your vehicles) over a manual CTS?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"Would I dare say you'd even take a DSG A3 (which I love the pure speed of; even though it is known you like to have a 3rd pedal in your vehicles) over a manual CTS?"
Ohhh, good question. ;-) Would I rather have a car that I like with an automatic transmission or a car that I don't like with a manual transmission. Ouch! I'm a self-professed manual transmission bigot and have never made a secret of that fact; however, given your choices of two unpalatable options, I'd have to take a pass until I was able to get something I liked. If either of those two cars were given to me, I'd immediately turn around and sell them as I have no desire to drive either. Pushed to the absolute extreme, I’d probably opt for the Audi, although I’d hate it. :P
Obviously you have yet to take a look yourself. IIRC, bluebuydotcom posted a picture of his legs first inside of an IS and then inside of an E90. Those pictures illustrated what my kids found out very well. In this case, even the paper specs agree. Don’t believe me? Look it up.
Actually it, was my e46. The e90 is much bigger in back.
Hi guys, was away for 2 weeks and wow, this place is busier than ever. However, I see that the topics being discussed here haven't changed much...
After taking a week to read all the posts, a thought has surfaced in my mind and I thought I'd share it with you guys. I think generally speaking we can break the ELLPS buyers into 2 groups:
Group 1: Those whom are looking for a pure performance car which also can serve as a daily driver. People in this group tended to opt for manual tranny, sports package but usually not so hot on the luxury items.
Group 2: Those whom are looking for a car that's A LITTLE sportier, A LITTLE faster, A LITTLE more luxurious and A LITTLE better looking (subjective I know) than the regular midsize 4-door sedans. People in this group tended to opt for auto tranny and usually won't push their cars to the limit nor track their cars.
I personally think it's silly to count any worthy candidate out of contention because of reasons such as lack of auto tranny, FWD and softer ride than the benchmark (3-series). The reason why this segment is booming is because now-a-day there are so many different choices in the market so almost everybody out there could find one for his/her liking.
*quote* Those whom are looking for a car that's A LITTLE sportier, A LITTLE faster, A LITTLE more luxurious and A LITTLE better looking (subjective I know) than the regular midsize 4-door sedans. *** louiswei could have put "Accord" in place of "regular midsize 4-door sedans" without changing any part of the definition, since the Accord/Camry are the car people are trying to step up from.
Host has been very clear about one point: THE most important requirement is that an ELLPS must be sold with an established LUXURY manufacturer's label, notwithstanding a candidate's excellence in the areas of luxury and performance. Honda does NOT count. Everyone should quit trying to slip low-life car brands into the rareified air of our exclusive message forum.
"...75% of 3 series sedans being sold that are 2004 or newer have automatics..."
Hahaha. Yeah, the key words might be "being sold". Maybe the owners are dumping the cars because they realized their mistakes and want to get good old stick shifts next time?
Those are Edmunds True Cost To Own 5 year totals for each car. There is not a great difference in how much it costs an owner of either car over a five year period.
True Cost To Own (TCO) takes into account the following expense categories:
No disrespect to Edmunds, but their "true cost to own" figures are just plain B.S..
Do the depreciation calculations yourself. A CTS is expected to depreciate more than $22k over the first 3 yrs. My TL has depreciated less than $9k over that time. So far, in 18 months, I can sell my 911S for about $11-13k less than I paid for it. If my true cost to own a 1995 Maxima w/ 155k miles was remotely close to what Edmunds would have estimated, I wouldn't have a 911S as living proof otherwise.
For somebody truly in love with a Cadillac such that they will keep it 10+ years, resale value isn't much of a factor. But if you buy any GM, short of a Corvette, practice bending over and grabbing your ankles. :surprise:
"Okay, the CTS is severely lacking compared to an A3 or A4. The CTS is heavy, large, numb, overpriced and understeers too much, while feeling cheap throughout. I regret every moment I've spent driving a CTS. "
That statement shows that you are incredibly biased and uncredible. The CTS and any other RWD sports sedan is more balanced than a front heavy Audi. The CTS is no larger or heavier than the 5 series, A6, E350, etc. so your statement makes no sense. In fact, the CTS is lighter than the A6 last time I checked even though the cars are essentially the same size. Every review of the CTS I have seen has had praise for the steering feel and the CTS does not understeer any more than other sedans in this class. It surely has less propensity to understeer than an Audi.
"I guess you aren't a real driving enthusiast since you really can not tell the difference. Don't get me wrong. I respect all of your view points. To each his own. "
Again, if you actually read enthusiast magazines you would know that my "opinions" about the CTS have been widely verified. This is not something I am making up just because I dont like the 5 series, this is fact. Just say you dont like the CTS or any other non-BMW luxury sedans but dont be foolish enough to suggest that BMW doesnt have any legit competitors in this segment. You are suggesting that I'm too uninformed to realize that the CTS cant hold a candle to a 5 series, but I already told you that the CTS beat the 525 (and other cars) in a R&T comparison and they had nothing but good things to say about it's handling. Please explain that since you are such an authority on enthusiast driving.
"First off, let’s lose the bilge water about what auto rags have written. They far too often stack the deck one way or another for their opinions to really mean much as a general statement."
Most auto mags like BMWs so I dont get your point. Are you saying we should disregard their opinions when they praise BMW products, or just Cadillacs? Just want to get clarity.
" I have no idea who or what opined that the CTS was a legit contender, but I have to question its motives. Those two cars were as different as night and day and there is no way the CTS of that era was even qualified to sniff the fumes of the 530i. "
One one hand we have my personal experience and the word of numerous magazines. On the other hand we have your biased opinion of the CTS which is a car you test drove in order to criticize since you are obviosuly a BMW owner and die hard fan. Which side should I believe? I also drove the 530 back to back with the STS V6 and the BMW had no clear advantage. Your bias is eroding the little credibility you have left at this point. Almost everyone knows the CTS is a real sports sedan, perhaps its time for you to acknowledge this instead of comparing it to an Accord. BTW, does the CTS-V fit into your description of the CTS as a soft, half baked sports sedan? Just wondering.
"The engine had also been dramatically improved over the early models, so much so that I’d even go so far as to say that it was competent. Not as smooth as an I6, but then no V6 is so no loss there. That said, the car’s suspension was still sloppy, the seats were still uncomfortable, and the ergonomics still weren’t ergonomic. "
Wow, competent? Thanks! I'm sure Cadillac execs can sleep well at night knowing that you thought the 3.6V6 was competent. Sloppy suspension? Thats way off base and everything you are saying totally contradicts what we know to be true about the CTS. I'm wondering how the CTS made it around the Ring with that Buick soft suspension you are describing. As for the interior, I havent said anything positive about it so I fail to see why you continue to insult the interior design.
"Ummm, do you rely on the car magazine for all of your opinions? I mean really, who gives a crap what a car magazine says? "
Thats exactly what I say when people try to use magazines as proof that BMWs are clearly superior to the competition. I like the CTs interior based on the pics, but the magazines (and Edmunds) share my opinion. People who have been in the car at the show also said it feels as good as it looks. Dont know what else to tell you. I cant take anyone seriously who thinks the '08 CTS interior is crap. That just shows you refuse to give credit where it's due. Any complaints about the 300hp engine or 6 speed transmission? Let me guess, you dont believe the magazines when they say those features will be available.
"No, I think that you’re parroting the scribes who regurgitate the marketing bilge fed to them by the auto companies. "
If these scribes were praising BMWS (which they do) would you stil be insulting them? Of course not. They are merely pointing out the positive features of a car they like. If you honestly think that publications like MT and C&D which are known for slamming GM products are just making this stuff up or repeating what GM told them to say you are truly out of touch. The car is nice and they wanted to convey that in their reports from the NAIAS. simple as that.
"Oh, and FWIW, the same day I drove the CTS 6-Speed last year, I drove an A3 2.0T 6-Speed. Yikes, what a difference."
Yikes! The CTS is only about 4 years older than the A3 and thus it makes sense that the A3 seems fresher in terms of design and execution. The CTS is in its final few months of production and you are wasting keystrokes criticizing a 5 year old design that is about to be retired. I wouldnt buy the 2007 CTS at this point with the new car coming out. Cadillac addressed your criticisms of the car and you are stills saying the '08 is mediocre at best. Go figure.
"First, don't even think about putting Cadillac and Lexus in the same sentence as if they have something in common vs. German cars. "
Are you seriously stating that cars like the GS, IS, STS, CTS, etc. have ntohign in common with the C, E, 3 and 5? LOL! YOu have got to be kidding me dude. I know that Lexus doesnt offer manuals but aside from that it is completely absurd to sit here and say Lexus and Caddy sports sedans arent even in the same ballpark. First of all MB and Audi models cant even get with BMWs in handling and thus they are no better than CAddy or Lexus models. If BMW has an edge, its a very slight edge that cant even bee noticed in street driving.
"Second, there is no "substantive" reason in the world that anyone should pay any more than $25,000 for a CTS. My 2004 Acura TL 6-speed cost $32,400 new and is now worth (30,000 miles), according to Edmunds, $24,600 on trade-in value. That's a total of $7,700 in depreciation. "
Never said the CTS is a leader in resale value but I have to admit your numbers seem a little off. I rarely see used CTS models around here for under $24k or so. Are those numbers based on one particular car you saw for sale or did you get that from kbb? sorry but $40K to $18k in three years seems a little off to me. We all know that Acuras have good resale value and if that is your only concern than the TL is great. Of course to people who want RWD the TL isnt an option.
Since we are talking about resale value I think is important to note that the amount saved when buying and financing a new car is significant. If you save $100 a month by getting a CTS over a German car and invest that over the course of your finacning period (60 months) I think that $6000 could earn enough to offset the difference in depreciation. But I'm sure you've already thought of that.
The CTS is no larger or heavier than the 5 series, A6, E350, etc. so your statement makes no sense. In fact, the CTS is lighter than the A6 last time I checked even though the cars are essentially the same size.
Who brought up that big egg the a6? I didn't. I brought up the A3/A4 - cars I know drive better than a CTS.
Every review of the CTS I have seen has had praise for the steering feel and the CTS does not understeer any more than other sedans in this class.
I've driven the CTS. The hack journalists never really tear into cars for being underperformers. The art of automobile critique - much like film critique - has been reduced to either high praise or middling support with enough superlatives to keep the ad dollars flowing. Anyone recall the flap when the LA times' car guy tore into GM? What happened? Yeah, GM pulled advertising. So tell me, can I trust a magazine with ad dollars at stake over my OWN experience? No. My money is more important to me than what some pandering auto journalist writes to protect his job.
It surely has less propensity to understeer than an Audi.
not in my experience. The front end dive on the CTS was laughably awful. It was more akin to driving a plow, than a sport sedan. When I mentioned the dive to the car salesman, he just said, "This is a caddy. It's tuned for comfort."
Dont have access to a track and I doubt many BMW owners drive their 530s on the track. Its pointless to brag about capabilities that cant be tapped on public roads. Most of the cars we are discussing offer more than owners can use.
"BTW, it's great to use the rags for a guide but they are far from Gospel. Who's buying these cars anyway? YOU. "
I am not a person who makes buying decisions based on car mags. If I did I would be a rabid BMW fan since the auto press loves BMWs even though they offer worst in class value. One has to agree (actually you dont of course) that you tend to believe something when various press sources concur. Most of the press says the 3 series is the benchmark sports sedan but according to you I should disregard that since mags are biased and often off base. I hardly quote buff mags as gospel but certain things have to be accepted based on how often they are agreed upon by the automotive writers from numerous sources. I accept that Audi makes high quality interiors, Honda makes great manual trannies, that BMW usually have accurate steering, etc. Along with that I accept that Cadillac does in fact know how to design a RWD sports sedan.
1. The 3/A4/IS are compact cars and weigh less than the CTS. They should be more nimble since they are shorter and lighter.
2. The CTS is the same size as the 5, E and A6 and that's why I mentioned the A6. The CTS is priced like a compact German car but handles and hold people like a midsize German car. Its pretty simple.
3. You should read more if you honestly think auto writers never criticize vehicles. HAve you ever read any revies of the Aztek? The last gen Escalade? The GM minivans? The Catera? Please spare me. The CTS hasnt been dogged because its not a bad car. Very simple.
"Yeah, GM pulled advertising. So tell me, can I trust a magazine with ad dollars at stake over my OWN experience? No. My money is more important to me than what some pandering auto journalist writes to protect his job."
GM rarely pulls advertising. OBviously you havent read the review in question if you honestly think this was a case of GM pulling ads over a factual, but unfavorable reviwe. The idiot journalists barely talked about the car, he used the article to attack GMs management and called for their resignations. The editorial content of any magazine or paper is separate from the ad department. If that wasnt the case GM products would always get good reviews in C&D and MT since GM spends tons of money for ads in those publications. Anyone who reads them knows that GM products rarely get praise. It is beyond silly to suggest that the CTS (or any other car) only got good reviews because of ad dollars and that is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard to trash a car someone doesnt like.
"not in my experience. The front end dive on the CTS was laughably awful."
The laws of physics and reviews of the CTS say your wrong. Also the CTS has a base suspension and a sports suspension. Which were you driving? Audis have 60% front weight bias and thus understeer and Audi go hand in hand. There is a reason the CTS has 50/50 distribution like BMW models my friend. They didnt just do it for kicks.
1. The 3/A4/IS are compact cars and weigh less than the CTS. They should be more nimble since they are shorter and lighter.
I'm not looking for excuses - I'm looking to drive a car that's fun and nimble and offers entry-level lux. Caddy fails on all three of those criteria.
2. The CTS is the same size as the 5, E and A6 and that's why I mentioned the A6. The CTS is priced like a compact German car but handles and hold people like a midsize German car. Its pretty simple.
So it's a large sedan trying to compete in the ELLPS field. Well they missed the mark showing up to the dance with the biggest, least nimble date.
3. You should read more if you honestly think auto writers never criticize vehicles. HAve you ever read any revies of the Aztek? The last gen Escalade? The GM minivans? The Catera? Please spare me. The CTS hasnt been dogged because its not a bad car. Very simple.
Reviewers softball all vehicles. They don't tear into the cars enough and really overlook glaring mistakes in execution and drive. Far too often they give a car a seal of approval based on the price or the genre it's competing amongst. For my money all cars compete against all cars. This isn't 1st graders against 12th graders...it's my money determining which vehicle i will find fun for the next few years. They're all given a level playing field. some deliver, some don't.
GM rarely pulls advertising. OBviously you havent read the review in question if you honestly think this was a case of GM pulling ads over a factual, but unfavorable reviwe. The idiot journalists barely talked about the car, he used the article to attack GMs management and called for their resignations.
How dare he think! How dare that writer and human being express an opinion that runs contrary to the great GM. This is exactlty what I'm talking about. The review was amusing and he had a strong point of view. i applaud all critics who stand up and really express themsevles. I may not agree but at least I know the critic is doing his job: being critical.
Anyone who reads them knows that GM products rarely get praise. It is beyond silly to suggest that the CTS (or any other car) only got good reviews because of ad dollars and that is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard to trash a car someone doesnt like.
I trash the CTS because it's ugly, poorly put together, has a rough engine, sloppy suspension, cruddy transmission, zero road-feel, bad interior and is way overpriced. The reviewers...they're just pandering. So I feel bringing up reviews of any car is worthless...like movie critics/food critics, car reviews are meaningless entertainment.
There is a reason the CTS has 50/50 distribution like BMW models my friend. They didnt just do it for kicks.
Who knows why GM does anything? Why did they put a Knight Rider dash in the CTS? Why do all the plastic feel like a child's toy? Why does the front end dive in corners? Why does the engine make thrashing sounds? Why does the car exhibit so much body roll in corners? Why is it a dip causes massive undulations that continue as if the car had bad struts/springs? Why is GM still in business? So many impossible to answer questions and in the end I'm left with a simple fact: the CTS is not the kind of car that will ever grace my garage. I value fit, finish, design, ergonomics, ride, handling, power, balance...the CTS is subpar in all those areas.
"Since we are talking about resale value I think is important to note that the amount saved when buying and financing a new car is significant. If you save $100 a month by getting a CTS over a German car and invest that over the course of your finacning period (60 months) I think that $6000 could earn enough to offset the difference in depreciation. But I'm sure you've already thought of that."
With that logic, you might as well buy a Hyundai Accent, put $1000/month more in the bank and become a multi-millionare. :confuse But I'm sure you already knew that.
"With that logic, you might as well buy a Hyundai Accent, put $1000/month more in the bank and become a multi-millionare. :confuse But I'm sure you already knew that. "
Yeah you could do that if you so chose. I mentioned the CTS because I thought we were talking about luxury sedans. Maybe you can see why I failed to mention the accent.
My point still stands, at the end of a 4 to 5 year period you arent losing much, if any money, if your monthly payments for the cheaper car (talking comparable vehicles) are saving you a nice bit of money. That kind of shuts down the whole "buy more expensive cars because they depreciate less and save you thousands" argument being made here.
BTW, I know you believe all reviews are lies but I was wondering if you could provide one reference article that backs up your assertions that the CTS rides and handles like a Lesabre. Just ONE. And I dont mean an article that says its not as sharp as the 5 series, I mean something that corroborates your claims that the car is unacceptable sloppy and totally incompotent as a sports sedan. Surely you can find one article where the author was brave enough to tell us the hidden truth about the CTS as you have. I am so glad you exposes this media conspiracy to make us believe the CTS can handle well. WHo knows, maybe its not even really RWD. Who knows what lies have been foisted upon us by the "softball" reviewers out there who secretly love GM.
My point still stands, at the end of a 4 to 5 year period you arent losing much, if any money, if your monthly payments for the cheaper car (talking comparable vehicles) are saving you a nice bit of money. That kind of shuts down the whole "buy more expensive cars because they depreciate less and save you thousands" argument being made here.
Agree there. If depreciation is really a worry, buy a 3 year old Honda Civic and watch the car lose only 7-8% a year. In this segment, depreciation is a killer no matter what.
BTW, I know you believe all reviews are lies but I was wondering if you could provide one reference article that backs up your assertions that the CTS rides and handles like a Lesabre. Just ONE. And I dont mean an article that says its not as sharp as the 5 series, I mean something that corroborates your claims that the car is unacceptable sloppy and totally incompotent as a sports sedan. Surely you can find one article where the author was brave enough to tell us the hidden truth about the CTS as you have. I am so glad you exposes this media conspiracy to make us believe the CTS can handle well. WHo knows, maybe its not even really RWD. Who knows what lies have been foisted upon us by the "softball" reviewers out there who secretly love GM.
Find me a review where the critic tells us a BMW 3 series' handling is sloppy and incompetent.
You can't either. Do you believe that's because the 3 is really that good? I don't! I own one and I'm not blown away like the critics are. I read the hyperbolic, obsequious bilge written about the 3 series and I wonder why critics must all be lackeys for the car industry.
Let's take a step back and think about what we're talking about. We've had a good discussion for a long time... no need to go ballistic now. Some posts are better left without responses.
I agree the 3 is overly hyped, but not because I doubt its handling. I think it's overly hyped because the press ignores its high price tag, dull interior and compact size. The press does exaggerate the greatness of the 3 series, but I wouldnt go so far as to say they are giving false accounts of the car's capabilities.
I believe their assessment was not that Infiniti has messed up but that it hasn't improved very much while the 3er has improved a great deal.
Its funny how their comparisons are rarely every won for the same reason. One day it is the vehicle they feel is the most refined, the next its the one they find makes it around the track faster, the next its the one that is the better bargain.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
BMW to win - it's because of the handling and the legendary BMW performance. Toyota/Lexus to win - it's because of the better refinement. Honda to win - it's because of the overall package. Domestic/Korean to win - it's because of the better bargain.
I like Lexus? Thanks for telling me since i never knew that.
I have a problem with magazines when they are inconsistent in their evaluations or when they ignore test results to put BMWs and Hondas in first place in comparions. THis doesn't mean I disregard their comments about the driving characteristics of vehicles. I dont agree with C&D's rankings or their penchant for drooling over every BMW or Acura model they test, but that doesnt mean I would claim the vehicles they praise are bad vehicles.
"If you want to drive a caddy, and call it a sports sedan, then more power to ya. That's why they call this America"
Acutally, anyone with common sense would call the CTS a sports sedan. Of course, your opinion does mean more to me than facts so maybe I'll reconsider that stance. I love the arrogance of people who think they can change the definition of a vehicle because they dont like it. Many people are Vette fans but that doesnt make the vette any less of a great sports car.
"It's felt by people [enthusiasts] who are a little more hooked in to a car, and drive by feel. It's on the one hand subjective, and on the other very definitive. "
Exactly, and enthusiats magazines and CTS owners know the CTS is a car for enthusiasts. It has the "feel" and the subjective qualities found in great handling cars. At the end of the day all we're left with is your personal dislike of the car and shocking as it may be, that isnt enough for me to disregard the evidence out there stating the CTS is good car. It's certainly as capable (or moreso) than the C class or A4.
However, the Ring is used for a reason and that is why the CTS is more of a drivers car than anything Lexus has on the market.
BTW, the IS was tested on the "ring" as well you know. I have to agree with dhamilton on this one, a car being tested on the "ring" really doesn't mean much now-a-day.
Ideal front engine/RWD weight distribution is completely different from rear/mid engine RWD weight distribution. Try to use another example because this one doesn't hold water. Judging by your statement, would a "FronTrac" Audi be a "world beater" but a RWD Caddy not?
My question to all is what makes anything a "winner?" If you want a 3 series, go get it. It doesn't make other cars bad handlers or cars. The 3 series is small and expensive and if that matters most to you, great. Other people might actually value "value" more than the purist road feel that apparently only a BMW can deliver. I find the A4's interior extremely outdated with a mid 90s look and feel. This makes sense because it has changed very little since then. It has hard to decipher climate controls and a tiny nav screen mount low in the dash old school style. The idea of a 3700+ lbs compact car with a 104" wheelbase just doesn't boil my blood, sorry. The 3 series has the most boring looking dashboard in the whole class. It's gauges are as plain as an economy car's and you can get 300hp but no standard leather. At least the next C class is much better looking inside and out than the old one. Out of the 3 german offerings in this price class, the 3 series would be the only one I'd drive. That being said, I'd never buy/lease a new one simply because the other cars in the class offering more bang for the buck. I also couldn't pay $40k+ for a compact sedan. With such a tight back seat, might as well get the 335 coupe.
Sir, may I suggest a subscription to CR? They don't accept ad dollars. The A3 weighs as much (V6 AWD) as a CTS yet has a 101" wheelbase and your telling me it drives better than the CTS? Wow... no comment on that. If that is not an apple to oranges comparison, what is? You're comparing a tight tiny compact wagon to a roomy full size entry level lux sedan? BTW, a loaded A3 Quattro can top $40k. Is that not overpriced?
I wish I knew which CTS you were driving that drove like a "plow". Did you puncture the shock before getting behind the wheel?
The IS may not be as sharp as the 3 series but you people are making it out to be a Buick. I would venture to say that 90% of the people who test drive or own an IS would feel it is sporty enough. I have not read widespread criticism of the IS' handling by any means. Just because it isnt up to your standards (and what non German car would be?) doesnt mean the IS didnt benefit from being developed on the Ring.
Comments
Audi? Surely you jest. The CTS has a nearly 50/50 weight distribution and RWD layout which you wont find in any Audi. I've never heard anyone suggest that the STS and CTS were lacking when compared to Audis. The CTS was developed to compete with German cars and much of its development happened in Germany. I dont know where you are getting your info about CTS development. The CTS was the first of many GM models to get extensive time at the Ring during development.
The CTS is larger and heavier than the 3 series and thus isnt likely to be as nimble. I don't know that its lacking compared to the 5 series though. Many seem to feel the curretn 5 is somewhat less connected than the last gen model, especially with the silly active steering.
"Have you ever driven one of these BMW babies for any length of time?? This car is like putting on a set of wheels, chassis and engine and hooking it to your brain. The best is when you drive something else and you are at a loss!! "
I have driven the last gen 540, 328, 330, X5 and the current 530. Again, away from a racetrack I would be hard pressed to find any definitive advtantage. The steering is heavy and precise, but that applied the old Cadillac Catera I drove as well. Sorry, but the qualities that exist in BMWs can be had in other cars.
I have driven the CTS as well. There are very few RWD american cars but the STS and CTS are definitely capable. I wouldnt try to compare FWD american family sedans to BMWs with RWD that cost thousands more.
Pics of the CTS interior are widely available on the net, including here at edmunds. why dont you look at the pics before saying you wont be impressed. And yes, people have been inside the car and verified the materials are top notch. I have to wonder how any car enthusiasts has missed the positive reaction to the CTS. As for Caddy interiors: check the '08 CTS, DTS, Escalade, XLR, and '07 SRX before stating Caddy cant design a nice interior. The CTS is the only bad interior in the bunch.
I wouldnt equate Art and Science to the gangster-mobile 300 styling at all. Just because they both use large grilles doesnt mean they have anything in common. I dont see anything over the top about the STS (many feel its too conservative), SRX, DTS or XLR. the '08 CTS is many things, but "cartoonish" isnt one of them. The general consensus is that the car looks very good. Even the design critic at Automobile who hates most everything he reviews was gushing over the car. If you think the CTS is ugly I do wonder what luxury cars you find attractive.
I dont equate bland with attractive but you seem to be critical of Caddy designs because they are bold and stand out. would you prefer if Caddy when the lexus route and copied German designs?
I've never heard anyone suggest that the STS and CTS were lacking when compared to Audis.
Okay, the CTS is severely lacking compared to an A3 or A4. The CTS is heavy, large, numb, overpriced and understeers too much, while feeling cheap throughout. I regret every moment I've spent driving a CTS.
As far as copying goes, I think Toyota picked up surface cues from BMW, but the main bulk of the current styling genre seems to have borrowed more from other Japanese, who were copying Germans, but got it by way of an impaired Italian translator.
Of all in the entrylux and beyond classes, I think Audi has the best eye to real exterior design, and that's even with the absurd nose. Certainly I find their interiors to be the benchmark for which to aim. To the point, clean and well-executed.
First, don't even think about putting Cadillac and Lexus in the same sentence as if they have something in common vs. German cars. Nice attempt at association, but that's like me saying my golf game has more in common with Tiger Woods' than Phil Mickelson's because I'm right handed.
Second, there is no "substantive" reason in the world that anyone should pay any more than $25,000 for a CTS. My 2004 Acura TL 6-speed cost $32,400 new and is now worth (30,000 miles), according to Edmunds, $24,600 on trade-in value. That's a total of $7,700 in depreciation. A 2004 CTS with 30,000 miles is worth a measily $18,300 in trade in value and had an MSRP of over $40,000 (without many features the TL had as standard equipment). If you add $7,700 in depreciation to the value of a CTS, a new one should have cost $25,000 to be fairly priced against a TL. And that's assuming one can get past the butt ugly looks. :confuse:
The reason Cadillacs aren't worth crap as 3-4+ year old used cars is .... well they really aren't worth a whole lot more than that new. It's just that some poor people actually think that by going cheap up front, they are saving money. My 12 year old Nissan Maxima with 155k miles is worth more than most GM's, including Cadillacs, that are half it's age with half the mileage. And it looks and runs better.
Forget a BMW 3 series or 5 series, a three year old CTS with 30,000 mile would have actually cost you as much or more in depreciation than a Porsche 911S with MSRP of well over twice as much. Doesn't necessarily make me feel less guilty driving my 911S, just a boatload smarter.
I guess you aren't a real driving enthusiast since you really can not tell the difference. Don't get me wrong. I respect all of your view points. To each his own.
However, the entire CTS package doesn't even come close to urging me to test drive the car, let alone for many, many miles.
Regards,
OW
Looks are subjective. Fun factor (also subjective)--the BMW wins. I've actually driven most of the cars in this segment. That LARGER CTS is more fun to drive than the smaller Lexus IS 350. Service? The best service is a car that only has to go in for routine maintenance. The sales guy at my local BMW *bragged* about the number of loaner cars they had available. That didn't inspire confidence in the reliability of the car. Your mechanic friend is stuck in the past.
OW, IMHO, you should at least test drive the CTS, the A4, the 3 series, the new C class (no one is talking about that redesign), the G35, etc. As much I love the exterior looks of the CTS, I would consider myself an incomplete shopper if I didn't at least test the G35, the TL, the IS, the 3 series, etc.
I guess we do a new car around this time every year. Last year it was the IS vs. the 3 series. Now it's the not even released CTS. Hehe...
Hey.... I like my A3's nose! :P :surprise:
I like everything about my A3 Sport Package 2.0T. Including the fact that I haven't had any mechanical/electrical issues in 12.5K miles.
“Its not about CTS apologists. Its about you disregarding a lot of evidence that the CTS is a decent RWD sports sedan because you personally dont like it. Sorry, but you should take up your beef with the auto writers whos said the car was a legit contender to the 5 series when it came out in 2002. Nothing you say can prove the CTS is an also ran sports sedan so lets just agree that you dont like the car and could care less about its merits.”
A decent RWD sports sedan? Like I said earlier, compared to an Accord, maybe so, compared to a 3-Series or a 5-Series, not happening. As for my not personally liking the CTS, uhhh, well, after driving it, it wasn’t hard. FWIW, shortly after I bought my 2002 530i 5-Speed, I took a drive in a CTS. I have no idea who or what opined that the CTS was a legit contender, but I have to question its motives. Those two cars were as different as night and day and there is no way the CTS of that era was even qualified to sniff the fumes of the 530i.
You keep equating my critical opinions of the CTS because I don’t like it. The point you’re missing is that I didn’t initially like it because besides being ugly inside and out, the early version of the CTS that I drove was a poorly executed, noisy rattle trap that had sloppy handling, an anemic engine, crappy ergonomics and uncomfortable seats. Yeah, I didn’t like it, and for good reason too.
”You are saying the the IS was way too small but the 3 series was spacious? OK, thats the first I've heard of that.”
Obviously you have yet to take a look yourself. IIRC, bluebuydotcom posted a picture of his legs first inside of an IS and then inside of an E90. Those pictures illustrated what my kids found out very well. In this case, even the paper specs agree. Don’t believe me? Look it up.
”You say you value manual trannies and the CTS has one but you are trashing the CTS. Interesting.”
You’re pretty funny. The first couple of times I went into a Cadillac dealership to drive a manual CTS I had the sales person actually tell me that I didn’t really want to drive a manual. When pressed, I was told by the salesman from both dealerships that not only did they not have any manual CTSs in stock, they’ve never even had one in and never would. At that point I had nothing left to lose, so I asked about ordering one. Once again, in both cases the dealerships refused to even consider the option, “We won’t order one because we know that you don’t really want a manual transmission and that in the end, you’ll stick us with the car and demand an Automatic version instead.”
FWIW, just about a year ago I did manage to happen upon a dealership that had a 6-Speed in stock and they were only too happy to let me drive it, I suppose the figured they’d finally found a sucker to unload it on, anyway, it drove okay, and while the transmission was smoother and easier to shift than the one in my 1970 Challenger, it was still stiff and clunky compared to the tranny in the E60. That said, I believe that both transmissions are made by Getrag, so I’m at a loss to explain the difference. Shifter maybe?
Other thoughts on last years’ drive of the CTS; the interior looked about as horrid as the early cars that I drove, however, at least it was screwed together better and had much better fit. The engine had also been dramatically improved over the early models, so much so that I’d even go so far as to say that it was competent. Not as smooth as an I6, but then no V6 is so no loss there. That said, the car’s suspension was still sloppy, the seats were still uncomfortable, and the ergonomics still weren’t ergonomic.
”Most people like the new CTS interior. Do you read any online or print car mags?”
Ummm, do you rely on the car magazine for all of your opinions? I mean really, who gives a crap what a car magazine says?
”I am merely agreeing with what many respected experts have said after seeing the car at the NAIAS.”
No, I think that you’re parroting the scribes who regurgitate the marketing bilge fed to them by the auto companies.
”You are the first anti domestic guy (and there are thousands here on Edmunds) to say with a straight face (i assume) that the new CTS is ugly and you arent impressed in any way.”
Me? Anti domestic? Hmmm, well, we currently have two domestic cars in our garage, and my wife is considering upgrading her daily driver with yet another domestic. A car by the way, pointed out to her by me. Also, I’m actually proud to admit that I like the 300, go figure.
”Wow. I guess if Bangle had designed it you would have been on board though.”
Clearly you’re either new around here or you haven’t been paying attention. I was and still am one of the first and loudest critics of the bangalized cars. I like the looks of say the E60 better than say the CTS or the Aztek, but that ain’t sayin’ much.
Oh, and FWIW, the same day I drove the CTS 6-Speed last year, I drove an A3 2.0T 6-Speed. Yikes, what a difference. Even though I’m not even remotely a fan of FWD cars, I’d take a FWD A3 over the CTS in a heartbeat.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Best Regards,
Shipo
Would I dare say you'd even take a DSG A3 (which I love the pure speed of; even though it is known you like to have a 3rd pedal in your vehicles) over a manual CTS?
Ohhh, good question. ;-) Would I rather have a car that I like with an automatic transmission or a car that I don't like with a manual transmission. Ouch! I'm a self-professed manual transmission bigot and have never made a secret of that fact; however, given your choices of two unpalatable options, I'd have to take a pass until I was able to get something I liked. If either of those two cars were given to me, I'd immediately turn around and sell them as I have no desire to drive either. Pushed to the absolute extreme, I’d probably opt for the Audi, although I’d hate it. :P
Best Regards,
Shipo
Actually it, was my e46. The e90 is much bigger in back.
After taking a week to read all the posts, a thought has surfaced in my mind and I thought I'd share it with you guys. I think generally speaking we can break the ELLPS buyers into 2 groups:
Group 1: Those whom are looking for a pure performance car which also can serve as a daily driver. People in this group tended to opt for manual tranny, sports package but usually not so hot on the luxury items.
Group 2: Those whom are looking for a car that's A LITTLE sportier, A LITTLE faster, A LITTLE more luxurious and A LITTLE better looking (subjective I know) than the regular midsize 4-door sedans. People in this group tended to opt for auto tranny and usually won't push their cars to the limit nor track their cars.
I personally think it's silly to count any worthy candidate out of contention because of reasons such as lack of auto tranny, FWD and softer ride than the benchmark (3-series). The reason why this segment is booming is because now-a-day there are so many different choices in the market so almost everybody out there could find one for his/her liking.
Ah, it's good to be back...
*quote*
Those whom are looking for a car that's A LITTLE sportier, A LITTLE faster, A LITTLE more luxurious and A LITTLE better looking (subjective I know) than the regular midsize 4-door sedans.
***
louiswei could have put "Accord" in place of "regular midsize 4-door sedans" without changing any part of the definition, since the Accord/Camry are the car people are trying to step up from.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Honda does NOT count. Everyone should quit trying to slip low-life car brands into the rareified air of our exclusive message forum.
Now, would you please pass the Grey Poupon?
Hahaha.
Yeah, the key words might be "being sold". Maybe the owners are dumping the cars because they realized their mistakes and want to get good old stick shifts next time?
$59,453 Cadillac CTS sport
Those are Edmunds True Cost To Own 5 year totals for each car.
There is not a great difference in how much it costs an owner of either car over a five year period.
True Cost To Own (TCO) takes into account the following expense categories:
Depreciation
Financing
Insurance
Taxes & Fees
Maintenance
Repairs
Do the depreciation calculations yourself. A CTS is expected to depreciate more than $22k over the first 3 yrs. My TL has depreciated less than $9k over that time. So far, in 18 months, I can sell my 911S for about $11-13k less than I paid for it. If my true cost to own a 1995 Maxima w/ 155k miles was remotely close to what Edmunds would have estimated, I wouldn't have a 911S as living proof otherwise.
For somebody truly in love with a Cadillac such that they will keep it 10+ years, resale value isn't much of a factor. But if you buy any GM, short of a Corvette, practice bending over and grabbing your ankles. :surprise:
That statement shows that you are incredibly biased and uncredible. The CTS and any other RWD sports sedan is more balanced than a front heavy Audi. The CTS is no larger or heavier than the 5 series, A6, E350, etc. so your statement makes no sense. In fact, the CTS is lighter than the A6 last time I checked even though the cars are essentially the same size. Every review of the CTS I have seen has had praise for the steering feel and the CTS does not understeer any more than other sedans in this class. It surely has less propensity to understeer than an Audi.
Again, if you actually read enthusiast magazines you would know that my "opinions" about the CTS have been widely verified. This is not something I am making up just because I dont like the 5 series, this is fact. Just say you dont like the CTS or any other non-BMW luxury sedans but dont be foolish enough to suggest that BMW doesnt have any legit competitors in this segment. You are suggesting that I'm too uninformed to realize that the CTS cant hold a candle to a 5 series, but I already told you that the CTS beat the 525 (and other cars) in a R&T comparison and they had nothing but good things to say about it's handling. Please explain that since you are such an authority on enthusiast driving.
Most auto mags like BMWs so I dont get your point. Are you saying we should disregard their opinions when they praise BMW products, or just Cadillacs? Just want to get clarity.
" I have no idea who or what opined that the CTS was a legit contender, but I have to question its motives. Those two cars were as different as night and day and there is no way the CTS of that era was even qualified to sniff the fumes of the 530i. "
One one hand we have my personal experience and the word of numerous magazines. On the other hand we have your biased opinion of the CTS which is a car you test drove in order to criticize since you are obviosuly a BMW owner and die hard fan. Which side should I believe? I also drove the 530 back to back with the STS V6 and the BMW had no clear advantage. Your bias is eroding the little credibility you have left at this point. Almost everyone knows the CTS is a real sports sedan, perhaps its time for you to acknowledge this instead of comparing it to an Accord. BTW, does the CTS-V fit into your description of the CTS as a soft, half baked sports sedan? Just wondering.
"The engine had also been dramatically improved over the early models, so much so that I’d even go so far as to say that it was competent. Not as smooth as an I6, but then no V6 is so no loss there. That said, the car’s suspension was still sloppy, the seats were still uncomfortable, and the ergonomics still weren’t ergonomic. "
Wow, competent? Thanks! I'm sure Cadillac execs can sleep well at night knowing that you thought the 3.6V6 was competent. Sloppy suspension? Thats way off base and everything you are saying totally contradicts what we know to be true about the CTS. I'm wondering how the CTS made it around the Ring with that Buick soft suspension you are describing. As for the interior, I havent said anything positive about it so I fail to see why you continue to insult the interior design.
"Ummm, do you rely on the car magazine for all of your opinions? I mean really, who gives a crap what a car magazine says? "
Thats exactly what I say when people try to use magazines as proof that BMWs are clearly superior to the competition. I like the CTs interior based on the pics, but the magazines (and Edmunds) share my opinion. People who have been in the car at the show also said it feels as good as it looks. Dont know what else to tell you. I cant take anyone seriously who thinks the '08 CTS interior is crap. That just shows you refuse to give credit where it's due. Any complaints about the 300hp engine or 6 speed transmission? Let me guess, you dont believe the magazines when they say those features will be available.
"No, I think that you’re parroting the scribes who regurgitate the marketing bilge fed to them by the auto companies. "
If these scribes were praising BMWS (which they do) would you stil be insulting them? Of course not. They are merely pointing out the positive features of a car they like. If you honestly think that publications like MT and C&D which are known for slamming GM products are just making this stuff up or repeating what GM told them to say you are truly out of touch. The car is nice and they wanted to convey that in their reports from the NAIAS. simple as that.
"Oh, and FWIW, the same day I drove the CTS 6-Speed last year, I drove an A3 2.0T 6-Speed. Yikes, what a difference."
Yikes! The CTS is only about 4 years older than the A3 and thus it makes sense that the A3 seems fresher in terms of design and execution. The CTS is in its final few months of production and you are wasting keystrokes criticizing a 5 year old design that is about to be retired. I wouldnt buy the 2007 CTS at this point with the new car coming out. Cadillac addressed your criticisms of the car and you are stills saying the '08 is mediocre at best. Go figure.
Are you seriously stating that cars like the GS, IS, STS, CTS, etc. have ntohign in common with the C, E, 3 and 5? LOL! YOu have got to be kidding me dude. I know that Lexus doesnt offer manuals but aside from that it is completely absurd to sit here and say Lexus and Caddy sports sedans arent even in the same ballpark. First of all MB and Audi models cant even get with BMWs in handling and thus they are no better than CAddy or Lexus models. If BMW has an edge, its a very slight edge that cant even bee noticed in street driving.
"Second, there is no "substantive" reason in the world that anyone should pay any more than $25,000 for a CTS. My 2004 Acura TL 6-speed cost $32,400 new and is now worth (30,000 miles), according to Edmunds, $24,600 on trade-in value. That's a total of $7,700 in depreciation. "
Never said the CTS is a leader in resale value but I have to admit your numbers seem a little off. I rarely see used CTS models around here for under $24k or so. Are those numbers based on one particular car you saw for sale or did you get that from kbb? sorry but $40K to $18k in three years seems a little off to me. We all know that Acuras have good resale value and if that is your only concern than the TL is great. Of course to people who want RWD the TL isnt an option.
Since we are talking about resale value I think is important to note that the amount saved when buying and financing a new car is significant. If you save $100 a month by getting a CTS over a German car and invest that over the course of your finacning period (60 months) I think that $6000 could earn enough to offset the difference in depreciation. But I'm sure you've already thought of that.
Actually their trucks and SUVs have pretty good resale value. Wrong again.
BTW, it's great to use the rags for a guide but they are far from Gospel. Who's buying these cars anyway? YOU.
Regards,
OW
Who brought up that big egg the a6? I didn't. I brought up the A3/A4 - cars I know drive better than a CTS.
Every review of the CTS I have seen has had praise for the steering feel and the CTS does not understeer any more than other sedans in this class.
I've driven the CTS. The hack journalists never really tear into cars for being underperformers. The art of automobile critique - much like film critique - has been reduced to either high praise or middling support with enough superlatives to keep the ad dollars flowing. Anyone recall the flap when the LA times' car guy tore into GM? What happened? Yeah, GM pulled advertising. So tell me, can I trust a magazine with ad dollars at stake over my OWN experience? No. My money is more important to me than what some pandering auto journalist writes to protect his job.
It surely has less propensity to understeer than an Audi.
not in my experience. The front end dive on the CTS was laughably awful. It was more akin to driving a plow, than a sport sedan. When I mentioned the dive to the car salesman, he just said, "This is a caddy. It's tuned for comfort."
"BTW, it's great to use the rags for a guide but they are far from Gospel. Who's buying these cars anyway? YOU. "
I am not a person who makes buying decisions based on car mags. If I did I would be a rabid BMW fan since the auto press loves BMWs even though they offer worst in class value. One has to agree (actually you dont of course) that you tend to believe something when various press sources concur. Most of the press says the 3 series is the benchmark sports sedan but according to you I should disregard that since mags are biased and often off base. I hardly quote buff mags as gospel but certain things have to be accepted based on how often they are agreed upon by the automotive writers from numerous sources. I accept that Audi makes high quality interiors, Honda makes great manual trannies, that BMW usually have accurate steering, etc. Along with that I accept that Cadillac does in fact know how to design a RWD sports sedan.
2. The CTS is the same size as the 5, E and A6 and that's why I mentioned the A6. The CTS is priced like a compact German car but handles and hold people like a midsize German car. Its pretty simple.
3. You should read more if you honestly think auto writers never criticize vehicles. HAve you ever read any revies of the Aztek? The last gen Escalade? The GM minivans? The Catera? Please spare me. The CTS hasnt been dogged because its not a bad car. Very simple.
"Yeah, GM pulled advertising. So tell me, can I trust a magazine with ad dollars at stake over my OWN experience? No. My money is more important to me than what some pandering auto journalist writes to protect his job."
GM rarely pulls advertising. OBviously you havent read the review in question if you honestly think this was a case of GM pulling ads over a factual, but unfavorable reviwe. The idiot journalists barely talked about the car, he used the article to attack GMs management and called for their resignations. The editorial content of any magazine or paper is separate from the ad department. If that wasnt the case GM products would always get good reviews in C&D and MT since GM spends tons of money for ads in those publications. Anyone who reads them knows that GM products rarely get praise. It is beyond silly to suggest that the CTS (or any other car) only got good reviews because of ad dollars and that is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard to trash a car someone doesnt like.
"not in my experience. The front end dive on the CTS was laughably awful."
The laws of physics and reviews of the CTS say your wrong. Also the CTS has a base suspension and a sports suspension. Which were you driving? Audis have 60% front weight bias and thus understeer and Audi go hand in hand. There is a reason the CTS has 50/50 distribution like BMW models my friend. They didnt just do it for kicks.
I'm not looking for excuses - I'm looking to drive a car that's fun and nimble and offers entry-level lux. Caddy fails on all three of those criteria.
2. The CTS is the same size as the 5, E and A6 and that's why I mentioned the A6. The CTS is priced like a compact German car but handles and hold people like a midsize German car. Its pretty simple.
So it's a large sedan trying to compete in the ELLPS field. Well they missed the mark showing up to the dance with the biggest, least nimble date.
3. You should read more if you honestly think auto writers never criticize vehicles. HAve you ever read any revies of the Aztek? The last gen Escalade? The GM minivans? The Catera? Please spare me. The CTS hasnt been dogged because its not a bad car. Very simple.
Reviewers softball all vehicles. They don't tear into the cars enough and really overlook glaring mistakes in execution and drive. Far too often they give a car a seal of approval based on the price or the genre it's competing amongst. For my money all cars compete against all cars. This isn't 1st graders against 12th graders...it's my money determining which vehicle i will find fun for the next few years. They're all given a level playing field. some deliver, some don't.
GM rarely pulls advertising. OBviously you havent read the review in question if you honestly think this was a case of GM pulling ads over a factual, but unfavorable reviwe. The idiot journalists barely talked about the car, he used the article to attack GMs management and called for their resignations.
How dare he think! How dare that writer and human being express an opinion that runs contrary to the great GM. This is exactlty what I'm talking about. The review was amusing and he had a strong point of view. i applaud all critics who stand up and really express themsevles. I may not agree but at least I know the critic is doing his job: being critical.
Anyone who reads them knows that GM products rarely get praise. It is beyond silly to suggest that the CTS (or any other car) only got good reviews because of ad dollars and that is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard to trash a car someone doesnt like.
I trash the CTS because it's ugly, poorly put together, has a rough engine, sloppy suspension, cruddy transmission, zero road-feel, bad interior and is way overpriced. The reviewers...they're just pandering. So I feel bringing up reviews of any car is worthless...like movie critics/food critics, car reviews are meaningless entertainment.
There is a reason the CTS has 50/50 distribution like BMW models my friend. They didnt just do it for kicks.
Who knows why GM does anything? Why did they put a Knight Rider dash in the CTS? Why do all the plastic feel like a child's toy? Why does the front end dive in corners? Why does the engine make thrashing sounds? Why does the car exhibit so much body roll in corners? Why is it a dip causes massive undulations that continue as if the car had bad struts/springs? Why is GM still in business? So many impossible to answer questions and in the end I'm left with a simple fact: the CTS is not the kind of car that will ever grace my garage. I value fit, finish, design, ergonomics, ride, handling, power, balance...the CTS is subpar in all those areas.
With that logic, you might as well buy a Hyundai Accent, put $1000/month more in the bank and become a multi-millionare. :confuse But I'm sure you already knew that.
Yeah you could do that if you so chose. I mentioned the CTS because I thought we were talking about luxury sedans. Maybe you can see why I failed to mention the accent.
My point still stands, at the end of a 4 to 5 year period you arent losing much, if any money, if your monthly payments for the cheaper car (talking comparable vehicles) are saving you a nice bit of money. That kind of shuts down the whole "buy more expensive cars because they depreciate less and save you thousands" argument being made here.
Agree there. If depreciation is really a worry, buy a 3 year old Honda Civic and watch the car lose only 7-8% a year. In this segment, depreciation is a killer no matter what.
Find me a review where the critic tells us a BMW 3 series' handling is sloppy and incompetent.
You can't either. Do you believe that's because the 3 is really that good? I don't! I own one and I'm not blown away like the critics are. I read the hyperbolic, obsequious bilge written about the 3 series and I wonder why critics must all be lackeys for the car industry.
Rear wheel drive, or rear drive bias is great to.
But just because a car has those things, doesn't make it a winner.
Porsche engineers have put dinner on the table defying physics for years. Ferraris don't have perfect weight distribution either.
It comes down to engineering, and things being well sorted out.
IOW, I'd take a front drive Audi over a rear drive Caddy most of the time.
When Caddy truly does a great piece of work [and the new CTS could just be it] then we'll give it it's due.
And, just being tested on the "ring" doesn't make it a world beater.
Could it be that Infiniti has really messed up the G35 on the second try?
Its funny how their comparisons are rarely every won for the same reason. One day it is the vehicle they feel is the most refined, the next its the one they find makes it around the track faster, the next its the one that is the better bargain.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Call me biased but apparently when they want:
BMW to win - it's because of the handling and the legendary BMW performance.
Toyota/Lexus to win - it's because of the better refinement.
Honda to win - it's because of the overall package.
Domestic/Korean to win - it's because of the better bargain.
I have a problem with magazines when they are inconsistent in their evaluations or when they ignore test results to put BMWs and Hondas in first place in comparions. THis doesn't mean I disregard their comments about the driving characteristics of vehicles. I dont agree with C&D's rankings or their penchant for drooling over every BMW or Acura model they test, but that doesnt mean I would claim the vehicles they praise are bad vehicles.
"If you want to drive a caddy, and call it a sports sedan, then more power to ya. That's why they call this America"
Acutally, anyone with common sense would call the CTS a sports sedan. Of course, your opinion does mean more to me than facts so maybe I'll reconsider that stance. I love the arrogance of people who think they can change the definition of a vehicle because they dont like it. Many people are Vette fans but that doesnt make the vette any less of a great sports car.
"It's felt by people [enthusiasts] who are a little more hooked in to a car, and drive by feel. It's on the one hand subjective, and on the other very definitive. "
Exactly, and enthusiats magazines and CTS owners know the CTS is a car for enthusiasts. It has the "feel" and the subjective qualities found in great handling cars. At the end of the day all we're left with is your personal dislike of the car and shocking as it may be, that isnt enough for me to disregard the evidence out there stating the CTS is good car. It's certainly as capable (or moreso) than the C class or A4.
BTW, the IS was tested on the "ring" as well you know. I have to agree with dhamilton on this one, a car being tested on the "ring" really doesn't mean much now-a-day.
My question to all is what makes anything a "winner?" If you want a 3 series, go get it. It doesn't make other cars bad handlers or cars. The 3 series is small and expensive and if that matters most to you, great. Other people might actually value "value" more than the purist road feel that apparently only a BMW can deliver. I find the A4's interior extremely outdated with a mid 90s look and feel. This makes sense because it has changed very little since then. It has hard to decipher climate controls and a tiny nav screen mount low in the dash old school style. The idea of a 3700+ lbs compact car with a 104" wheelbase just doesn't boil my blood, sorry.
The 3 series has the most boring looking dashboard in the whole class. It's gauges are as plain as an economy car's and you can get 300hp but no standard leather. At least the next C class is much better looking inside and out than the old one. Out of the 3 german offerings in this price class, the 3 series would be the only one I'd drive. That being said, I'd never buy/lease a new one simply because the other cars in the class offering more bang for the buck. I also couldn't pay $40k+ for a compact sedan. With such a tight back seat, might as well get the 335 coupe.
I wish I knew which CTS you were driving that drove like a "plow". Did you puncture the shock before getting behind the wheel?