I was surprised at the first generation CTS interior when I first looked at one. It was not quite what I had expected. The SRX interior was very similar. The interior was Cadillac's try at making an "Art & Science" interior style.
My 07 SRX is a big improvement over the original interior. I think that it could be better, particularly the bottom half of the door panels.
A parked vehicle with a dead power steering pump will be very difficult to turn. However, if the vehicle is moving steering should be possible.
Spoken like somebody who never drove the car. I had a 2005 CTS as a loaner car for a weekend several years ago. I took it on a long trip and found the car rather pleasant. It had a muted understated interior that actually was made of good materials. Maybe the spartan appearance made it look cheap, but it looked no worse than that of a contemporary 3-Series. The only thing I thought was quirky was the circular radio control on the steering wheel. Sure, the 2008 is a vast improvement over the previous generation CTS, but the old car hardly was junk.
Funny, I have the ultimate Cadillac DTS Performance and my experience seems to be the polar opposite of yours. I have had absolutely no major or minor problems with my vehicle. The only things my car has been in for is oil changes. Ten months? My 1989 Cadillac Brougham is 20 years old and it's still going strong.
Coming from a Lexus to a Cadillac is like going from a Buick Park Avenue to a Cadillac. I test drove an LS430 around the time I bought my 2002 Cadillac Seville STS. The Lexus experience is all hype. If you've driven a Park Avenue, you've driven a Lexus LS.
BMW and Mercedes to Cadillac? I guess that would be like going from the flashy, fun hot Vegas showgirl who will take you for everything you got to the less glamorous yet very pretty girl next door who is faithful, reliable, friendly, and respectful of your needs.
The first Gen CTS was basically a 3 series competitor, and it had the track cred to prove it. Just a 3 series with a Corolla interior. Downright nasty and cheap. But as a basic box to thrash around in, the 3.6 with manual was a total hooligan mobile. :P
Interestingly, though, the *better* first gen CTS was actually the Buick Lacrosse CXS. Same suspension, same handling, same engine. Loads less money. And a better interior, actually(plus you could see out of it to park). Just no manual and FWD instead of RWD.
But the 2nd gen, despite being as ugly as sin on the outside compared to the first gen one, is a larger, more capable car that blows the doors off of a typical E class and nips at the heels of a base 5 series. Not too bad. Actually a massive improvement in every area other than the exterior.
After many years I'm now convinced that GM needs a frontal management lobotomy before it will ever become successful manufacturer of high quality, well designed, highly reliable vehicles that will bring top resale value.
There is a fatal flaw in the company's execution, philosophy and core mission statement. The only analysis that I can make of it is that top management is unable or unwilling to bring the necessary resources to bear that would result in such world class quality. Top GM management needs replaced with those that have demonstrated success in high quality vehicle manufacturing such as from Toyota. The CEO should not receive a dime of compensation until GM cars regularly appear with far above indicators on surveys such as Consumer Reports.
Their electronics have consistently been troublesome (per Consumer Reports) and with the same problems year after year. They never fix the root problem of unreliable or poorly designed/manufactured electrical components that do not meet long term reliability and MTBF standards.
GM is typical of most US corporate top down leadership that is about short term profits and lip service only instead of getting it done the way it should be done. I'm frustrated that an American company is unable to get its act together and make quality their number one goal and put their money into it.
I've owned many GM cars, attended what was the GMI engineering school. and still own GM cars the latest being a DTS and a GMC and they all have had gremlins in the electronics that are more than just an inconvenience. These problems are very expensive for the customer to fix if not under warranty. The fixes are still costly to GM also.
Interestingly, though, the *better* first gen CTS was actually the Buick Lacrosse CXS. Same suspension, same handling, same engine. Loads less money. And a better interior, actually(plus you could see out of it to park). Just no manual and FWD instead of RWD.
You really are twistin here. How can you say the CTS and the LaCrosse have the same suspension? Completely different everything including suspension types. I do agree the LaCrosse has a better interior than the first CTS though. It is a very nice car for those who actually drove it.
The *CXS* version of the LaCrosse had the same suspension. The other versions were bland taxis. Then they dropped the 3.6 CTS engine and softened the suspension. This was basically a two year semi-hidden option before they neutered it in the current version with the 3.9 V6(and no, stuffing a V8 in it isn't the right way to go, either).
The first generation Lucerne CXS was also similar - Cadillac suspension and that great V8. Mated with the 4 speed automatic, it was wonderful. The gears were suddenly NOT too tall and the shift points were spot on. Then they ruined it by dropping in a three times as expensive to fix 5 speed automatic. Too busy and that magical mid 90s S class glide was gone. Oh, and loads more money to repair.
The other Lucerenes were bland gutless taxis as well. They may have the same name, but it might as well have been like the difference between a typical Mercedes and a AMG version of it - two totally different animals in actual driving. But 99% of people never actually drove the CXS version of either line before they started messing with it (iirc, roughly 2005-2007 models only)
Buick's problem was that they didn't make these versions the ONLY ones that you could buy. The 3.8 in the Lucerne is a tragic thing, and minus the magnetic ride suspension(we're talking Corvette suspension technology!), it's a total wallowing, lurching disappointment.
Moral - if you want people to buy your cars, only market the best version. Mini knows this as does Porsche and a few others. You don't impress people with a market flooded with taxis.
The *CXS* version of the LaCrosse had the same suspension.
Could you tell me why you think this. Believe me I am intimately intimate with the LaCrosse and everything about them. Just cannot figure out how the CTS and CXS have the same suspension.
Unappealing, this is too true of Cadillac, but not because of the cars, its the customer service and the whole ownership experience. This is the thing GM really need to fix, to recent survey mentioned in MT mag (I think its JDPower's, but I maybe wrong) a huge 60% of customers consider Japanese or Korean imports for purchase, and rising. The percentage of domestic potential customers dropped to about 50%. However, the number for domestics drops further AFTER said participants visit the dealerships. The majority of customers tend to change their minds after the dealership experience, which in the domestic's case, often cited as inadequate, uninviting, or unprofessional. Fix this first if Cadillac wish to even get customers take another look at Cadillac. Remember this, MB has horrific reliability but customers keep coming there, because at least the customer service is still 1st class. Cadillac can do the same.
"Could work with 3 but look at MB and BMW...no divisions"
In Germany itself BMW and MB are BOTH high and low class players. You can find plenty stripped down 3-series or C-class serving in taxi fleets. Remember that even A/C is optional for total base BMW 316 in Germany. The C-class cabs? Forget leather or even vinyl seats, all interior surfaces are either plastic or fabric, tiny 4-cyl gas/diesel engines with manual tranny. There are many low end players from Audi/BMW/MB you dont see in US. A2/A and B-class subcompact MPVs, cost about $15-20k in average. Outside US, the 1-series actually serve as a low to middle class product. The base 116i comes no more loaded than a base Honda Civic. AC, alloy wheels, auto climate control, and even auto-up/down windows are optional. Naturally, these bargain basement cars cost a low end average of $20-25k.
This rule unfortunately doesnt apply in US and many other countries. Germany, like Japan and Korea, can honor its national brands as both a low end and high-end marque. They can spend $10k or $100k on the same brand with pride. Hence there's no need for upscale divisions of Toyota-Honda-Nissan like Lexus-Acura-Infiniti. Some may argue that Toyota is starting to sell Lexus in Japan, but remember the most expensive ones (Crown royal-Majesta-Dinasty costing north of $80k) still proudly wear Toyota badge. This is whats missing in America, try selling a 50k+ Chevy and see who'll buy. Corvette is an exception of this rule, due to its loooonnggg history. Nobody's at fault, just different mindset. The Americans perception of the germans as luxury brands prevent them from bringing the smaller fish to the US pond.
"The Lexus LS is not in the S-class refinement range either. It may be somewhat better than the E-class, but not much. The Genesis is a good car for the money, but is not much more than the Toyota Avalon. " Please remember that Lexus has been around for a mere 20 year period, while MB's been trolling the luxury realm for 50 yrs. The Genesis is a decent near-luxury car, ala Buick and Acura (or what Acura used to be). I still have my issues with Gen's pricing, but otherwise there's no problem with it. Toyota decides not to rebadge the Crown line as Lexus, that offer S-class refinement the LS (Toyota Celsior) doesnt for obvious reason: the customers are NOT ready to buy an 80-100k Lexus, much less a Toyota.
Could you tell me why you think this. Believe me I am intimately intimate with the LaCrosse and everything about them. Just cannot figure out how the CTS and CXS have the same suspension.
Okay, they don't have EXACTLY the same suspension, but the upgraded suspension components in the CXS were many of the same ones used in the first gen CTS. Driving the CXS of that year, it was clear that it was by far the stiffest and most agile suspension ever put into any Buick. A real surprise.
Then they toned it down two years later and get rid of the 3.6. A shame, too, since the 3.6 was tuned for low end torque instead of HP. So while on paper it made nearly 20HP less than the CTS setup, it hit maximum torque at about 1400-1600rpm - about 400-500rpm lower than the 3.6 in the first and current gen CTSs. It pulls exactly like a small block V8 as a result.
GM of course blew it. Stuff that 3.6 tuned for torque like that in a Pontiac or the new Malibu and they'd blow Honda and Toyota's bland sedans out of the water.
Oh and yes, before ANYONE argues that the CTS sales keep rising, check out the same survey on MT mag and see what they say: The most popular reasons for buying imports: 1) Reliability and quality 2) Resale value
The most popular reasons for customers buying a domestic brand are: 1) Patriotism 2) Cheap maintenance 3) Heavy discounts offered
Did you see anything related to quality there? Nope. Plain and simple. This partly explains how the CTS keep rising in sales, many simply justify their purchase with "Buy American". Blinded patriotism as far as I can see. No offense to those who believe in the slogan, but I simply dont.
Now if Cadillac can raise the bar on customer service (up to Acura's standard perhaps), ease on price a bit, and the CTS coupe really makes it into the showrooms, you can bet I'll visit the Cadi dealership soon.
Now if Cadillac can raise the bar on customer service (up to Acura's standard perhaps), ease on price a bit, and the CTS coupe really makes it into the showrooms, you can bet I'll visit the Caddy dealership soon.
Agreed. The coupe further proves they are on the right track.
I still see no rave reviews on the former CTS in this forum....still waiting. The 2005 might have been raw with a m/t (are you sure there was a manual in the non-V model??) but the entire package was odd and interior well below luxury nameplate standard.
To me, if the car looks cheap, the incentives are built in after 1 month on the market. That's the Caddy strategy.
Your 2005 CTS 3.6 with 40K miles is now fetching: ($32,245 - 36,445)
Trade $14,501 - Private Sale $16,415 - Dealer Retail $18,093
With these options included
Leather and Wood Steering Wheel Trim Bose Audio Anti-Theft Alarm System 5-Speed Automatic Transmission 17 Inch Wheels Stability Control Satellite Radio System Power Moonroof Power Driver Seat w/Memory Power Front Passenger Seat Xenon High Intensity Discharge Headlights
We have a LaCrosse in my household. How is it anything like an early CTS? First of all, the LaCrosse is FWD while the CTS is RWD. how could they share the same suspension?
MY most popular reasons for customers buying a domestic brand are:
1) Excellent reliability and durability - especially Buick and Cadillac. 2) Beautiful styling. 3) Very cost-effective to purchase and maintain and repair
MY most popular reasons for avoiding imports: 1) Bland, grotesque, or alien styling 2) Arrogant dealers 3) Would need to repent your sins if you need to repair them.
Buick has offered an optional suspension upgrade that one does not usually see on dealer's lots for many years. The T-type Buicks in the 80's had stiffer suspensions as standard equipment. My 86 Electra T-type had a firm ride with excelent handling.
The 3.6 in the LaCrosse was not the same engine as the CTS's, but was retuned. The 2009 LaCrosse is getting the last of the 3800's before production is suspended. The next generation LaCrosse will be on a new platform.
We have a LaCrosse in my household. How is it anything like an early CTS? First of all, the LaCrosse is FWD while the CTS is RWD. how could they share the same suspension? ***
They seem to share many of the same parts. Sure, the RWD/FWD is a big difference, but it definitely feels like a poor man's CTS or very close to it. Very little body lean, no lurching between gears, and no throttle lag due to finally having enough torque. The upcoming platform and engines are likely to be another taxi. I have no faith in GM to put their best foot forward any more, at least not in the U.S.
Oh - it was the same 3.6VVT engine. Just they fiddled with the computers to favor torque over speed. It has a surprisingly European feel to it. Or did, until they ruined it. Mush like how Lexus had a perfect package in the IS300 and messed with it. The IS350 is overpowered and too heavy.(and too expensive) - the IS250 is a gutless wonder. So GM isn't the only one who makes mistakes. But they sure seem to make about 20 times the bad choices of their competition lately.
"The mother of all bad mistakes will be decided by GM in the next 2 weeks! "
You seem to forget that GM may have no choice in that. Cerebus is choking off the elegibility of customers to get financing (700 or higher credit score) in what seems like a play to force GM to take Chrysler in exchange for the rest of GMAC.
You seem to forget that GM may have no choice in that.
Well, isn't that amazing. GM is FORCED to merge with Chrysler. How apropos!
Cerebus might as well run the whole show because they've got GM where they want them, correct? They will have a big say in things at the end of the day. I am sure they know everything needed to turn this conglomeration around! :sick:
I'm not saying that GM can't benefit from "raping" Chrysler of their best assets and then just going about their business (I wonder if the Gov't would consider nixing the deal on the basis of some anti-trust laws).
What I find to be the most dissapointing aspect of the whole situation is how Chrysler ends up a rotting carcass in the end, not because of bad business decisions, but because they got "gobbled up" and the regurgitated by Mercedes, then sold to a bunch of incompetents who have no business being in the car making business.
Who knows, maybe Chrysler survives a merger w/ GM as a fleet only or mostly fleet company, thus allowing GM to make money selling to fleets thru their Chrysler arm, yet prop up their own brands resale value.
Think of a Sebring on the same platform as a G6, with a plainer (NOT cheaper) interior being sold mostly to the Avis' of the world. Because it runs on the same platform, it should be cheaper to make than it is now, but the value is built into the GM versions because of the higher trim levels and better engines they would have as retail cars.
Per JD Power Cadillac is number 7 for dealer satisfaction well above industry average and virtually ties with Mercedes. In fact it is Toyota and Honda that are below industry average. Also ALL GM makes are above industry average.
Okay, they don't have EXACTLY the same suspension, but the upgraded suspension components in the CXS were many of the same ones used in the first gen CTS. Driving the CXS of that year, it was clear that it was by far the stiffest and most agile suspension ever put into any Buick. A real surprise.
No, no, no. Not even close to shared or even similar parts. But I do agree with the best Buick for handling ever.
The only other Buick that might compete with the handling was the GNX. But I've driven one a long time ago and it wasn't nearly as good as even the Lucerne CXS. The base and mid-range models of the LaCrosse *are* pathetic things.
Go drive a 2006 LaCrosse CXS with the sport package. It really feels like a typical Honda or European sedan. A huge change from the typical GM car. I'm just upset that they de-tuned it for their older buyers again. It seems as if every time GM makes a good car(like the GTO), they mess with it and turn it into a soft potato after a few years.
The base and mid-range models of the LaCrosse *are* pathetic things.
The Camry/Lexux ES and W cars have very similar suspension hardware components. The CX / CXL were tuned to be very similar to the Camry/ES(ES has a softer ride with more roll than Camry/CX/CXL). The CXS was tightened up quite a bit but nowhere near the Accord which rides pretty hard over small impacts(tarstrips).
I'm just upset that they de-tuned it for their older buyers again.
The CXS was dropped and replaced by the V8 Super. Is this the vehicle that you feel they greatly revised the suspension? It does have performance Bilstein monotube shocks for better control.
It’s no GNX, and 20 years later, it is almost a second slower to 60 mph. It is, however, unexpectedly competent and quite reasonably priced. Our Jared Gall called it “easily the best-driving Buick in recent history” and said if not for the omnipresent torque steer, it might drive better than many Lexuses, a claim he made while scanning the heavens for swine on the wing.
The LaCrosse Super wasn’t designed to be a sports sedan, with all the comparisons that invites, and is instead billed as a “luxury touring sedan.” It is interesting to note that the Buick stops in less distance, holds onto the skidpad longer, and is quicker and faster than any of its platform-mates, with shocking high-speed stability, especially considering its roots and the badge on its nose.
not because of bad business decisions, but because they got "gobbled up" and the regurgitated by Mercedes, then sold to a bunch of incompetents who have no business being in the car making business.
Hey, Jim Press from almighty Toyota is running Chrysler. If he can make Toyota a wonderful successful company why could he not do the same with Chrysler? Oh, I know, it was the previous management that was screwed up.
I like the idea of keeping the Chrylser car plants running to supply fleet. Keep the midsize and compact car lines just for fleet. Keep a Chrysler name on them. Keep improving them and replacing them based on GM platforms but keep the GM name off them. I still think my idea of making the Ram Pick Ups as GMC is a great idea. Will need to close a few more GM plants though and keep a few of the Dodge plants to do this.
Both engines are 2008 model year. The LaCrosse's low end torque may be somewhat better, but is clearly about 10% less than the CTS's at higher engine speeds. Where the torque is most useful, at around 3000 RPMs, the CTS has more torque.
....there is no reason believe that Cadillac will ever be any standard except maybe for undertakers. Actually, the whole thing may just go away and become history if this is a done deal.
The problem is that if you work out the gearing and the shift points on the CTS, you end up with 3000rpm or so at nearly 50mph. In 2nd gear! The gearing is absurdly tall and in order to GET that torque, you need to be basically going way past any legal limit.(3000rpm in 5th gear is nearly 100mph)
LaCrosse - 1600rpm is where it hits its plateau(and where it basically stays within 5-10lb-ft torque all the way up to redline. The CTS is at 2300rpm. That might not seem like a lot, but the LaCrosse feels like a diesel in how quickly and linear the torque is in all gears.(the automatic in both wants to shift at about 1800rpm or so)
700rpm difference is huge for a GM engine/transmission combo.
It's not 0-60 times that matter. Or HP. It's how low and how quickly it develops that power and whether the gearing is set up to utilize it or not.
Around town, the LaCrosse 3.6 is a far better choice. Out on the highway at 75mph+, the CTS is a far better choice as it's finally starting to get up to speeds where you can use the power that it has.
Now, true, the Super is faster, but it's also heavier, more money, and has torque steer that's really quite annoying. It feels like what Lexus did with the IS300 when they "supersized" it to the IS350. It lost that magic balance between power and weight. It got heavy and went from a sport sedan to a muscle car type of driving experience.
Curb weight: 3791 lb Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5600 rpm Torque (SAE net): 323 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm (too high - given the 4 speed GM transmission)
Curb Weight: 3568 lb Power 240 HP@ 6,000 rpm Torque 225 ft lb@ 2,000 rpm(though essentially the same at 1600 as well) Note - exact same transmission for both. Oops. Massive throttle lag and lurching downshifts in the Super and none of that in the CXS. I know which one drives better in actual traffic.
The new CTS - yes, it's vastly better than any of the old designs. But it's also a lot of money, especially used, compared to a CXS.
The LaCrosse with the 3.6 gets a 3.69:1 axle ratio with a 4 speed transmission. Gear ratios are 2.92, 1.56, 1.00 and ,70 - tires are CXS: P225/55R17 AL2 (touring)
the CTS had 3.42:1 axle ratio with a six speed automatic: 4.02, 2.36, 1.53, 1.15, .85 and .67 - tires are P235/55R17 standard
second gear is 2.36x3.42= 8:1 for the CTS, 5.75:1 for the LaCrosse
The Lacrosse CXS makes the 1/4 mil in 15.8 sec/90.7 MPH.
The 2005 3.6 CTS did it in 15.02/94.1 MPH
The gearing argument yields similar results anyway. Both are mediocre at best. The Honda Accord is a over half-second faster the both, costs less, lasts longer and gets higher gas mileage.
Oh, but it doesn't have mindless steering and a pillowy ride. That's where it fails.
That was kind of my point. Both have miserably tall gearing, but the lower rpms that the CXS develops it torque at make for a much better in-town experience. Because 0-40mph with the thing floored and then oops - hit the brakes isn't really normal driving. Almost all cars these days have a miserably tall set of gears in order to get great mpg on the tests and good 0-60 times. But you have to literally flog the thing to get that performance. Otherwise, even at half throttle, it has enormous lag between the gears if you let it shift where it wants to. At 1/4 throttle, or typical in-traffic speeds, they are hopelessly slow. The Accord V6, the Camry V6, the Mercedes E class, the CTS.. all super high HP engines that have tall gearing and develop maximum power at the very top of their RPM ranges.
I personally like engines with a more diesel like torque curve as they are better to drive in traffic and scoot in and out without having to floor it. It makes for a very nice and quiet ride. Good speed, good get-up-and-go, and very quiet and refined while doing it. The Lucerne CXS is also the same, btw - very 1990s Mercedes S class in its feel. Quick, quiet, and hardly ever shifts that you notice.(in this case, fewer gears is a good thing, since nobody drives either Buick 100+mph)
Geeze, I gotta remember that when I take my girlfriend's ride to the drag strip next Sunday!
1/2 second faster? Proof? Costs less? Than what - a LaCrosse or CTS? Lasts longer? Well, where are all of those 1988-vintage Accords with the pop-up lights that were once common? I still see PLENTY of Buick Park Avenues and LeSabres of my car's vintage.
With the CTS's 4:1 low gear, performance from a standing start should be quite good without flooring the engine. I have the same six speed transmission in my SRX and find that it is very responsive. Flooring the engine results in 70 MPH by the time one gets to third gear.
The LaCrosse's performance is very good with the 3.6. A comparison test that included the Chrysler 300 with a 3.5 V6 and 5 speed transmission showed the LaCrosse was faster. The LaCrosse is not a sports sedan though. Nor is the Chrysler 300c.
But it's not 0-60 times that matter. It's the 20-40 and quick dodge into the next lane that's faster on the freeway (40-60) and so on that really matter. If it has to hunt for gears and is lugging at 2000rpm or less as automatics are wont to do if you let them, it makes for a very harsh ride. I find driving my mother's LeSabre with its 3800/4 speed combination, that I need 2-3 seconds to lead time in traffic to make such a transition safely due to the enormous lag.
1 - Whomp on the gas. The car takes 1/2 a second at least to respond and unlock the torque converter. 2 - It slams down two gears(ouch?) and revs itself up for about half a second while the car literally doesn't move. This is the dreaded "wide-open-throttle-lag" of most large V6 sedans(GM and Ford are the worst offenders here by far) Hugely noisy and strained sounding. 3 - You start moving. Quickly, but a full second plus your reaction time went by before anything happened. This means you have to actually pre-plan such moves. In the CXS, though, it's the first Buick in decades that I didn't have this problem in.
Manual aside of course. The CTS with manual is a whole other animal. All of these issues go away because you can chose which gear to be in and it always stays there. None of this skipping gears to improve MPG nonsense or going into overdrive when slowing down or other idiocy. (not a fan of automatics myself)
Now if only they would start shipping those nice diesel engines that they use in Europe and Australia over. 40-50mpg and great in-town performance.
It's looks are faster than the Buick in park and has more interior room than the CTS. Costs less and there are so many on the road now. Some one has a standard and it isn't Caddy.
I don't think comparing the CTS to the ES favorably is saying much - that's the Lexus lowest end car, and besting it is no grand accomplishment. Even the IS, despite pricing, is a much more competent vehicle than the ES, which is more a Buick than a Cadillac.
My SRX has the V8 so I can't say how the V6 reponds, but in city traffic any nudge on the gas pedal usually results in a downshift in normal mode. There is a sport mode that one can put the transmission into to get better response, as well as manual mode.
I am rather suprised that you find the clunky 4 speed in the LaCrosse to be reponsive. Perhaps it is more because of the performance gearing in the axle ratio than because the transmission is responding. With the 3.69:1 axle ratio you are basically a half gear lower than with the usual 2.80:1 axle ratio.
Both the Accord and Camry have become large midsize cars. Not really luxury size quite, but large cars. The gradual upsizing has put them in the hot selling size range for the last 20 years or so I think. The current midsize GM cars, Impala, Grand Prix and LaCrosse, are on an aging platform that is going away. The Saturn Aura and the new Malibu are on a different platform that will be re-engineered to update and upgrade it for new midsize cars. I think that the Prius will replace the Camry though if fuel remains expensive.
During the recession, this category will be hot while luxury will not. Caddy will diminish somewhat to the favor of these new larger cars from Toyota.
Toyota is going to be the global leader in cars anyway. For $10K less, the Accords of the world will be the new Caddies for the foreseeable future, IMHO. Just enough luxury with attractive style.
Usually during recessions luxury sells better than basic cars. Of course that means more that Mercedes and Lexus should do OK, while Toyota may have trouble.
This is not an ordinary recession. The credit crisis will dry up luxury buys. They will be luck to hold current sales numbers in 2009. That goes for ALL luxury brands, including Cadillac.
As far as Toyota weakness, this just in:
Toyota Motor Corp.'s China car sales beat General Motors Corp.'s in the first nine months of the year, as the Japanese company threatens to end GM's 77-year reign as the world's largest automaker.
GM's loss of market share in China, where it has ranked second among overseas carmakers for a decade, along with slumping U.S. demand may cost it the global sales crown. Last year, it beat Toyota by 3,100 vehicles worldwide.
Doesn't sound like the big T is having trouble in China, at least.
I am rather surprised that you find the clunky 4 speed in the LaCrosse to be responsive. Perhaps it is more because of the performance gearing in the axle ratio than because the transmission is responding.
This has a little to do with it, but it's mostly because it has 95% of its maximum torque at about 1500-1600rpm. You start moving *much* quicker - like a V8. And the VVT technology keeps it in the maximum torque range up and down the rpm ranges. It really does pull like a diesel in that the thrust is almost always the same optimal level no matter what you are doing.
It also shifts less as a result, since the nearly linear torque delivery results in less need to shift. I think GM modified the shifting in the transmission a bit as well because of this. Very "diesel" like - just obviously not a diesel. Gotta love VVT
Of course, WHY GM can't use VVT in every engine is beyond me. It would really give them an enormous sales advantage if they made all of their cars with it and made them favor low rpm torque over HP.(especially given the type of conservative person who generally buys GM cars)
GM's 3.9 pushrod V6 has VVT. The CTS's 3.6 has VVT and a variable intake manifold, which gives it about 220 lb-ft of torque at 1500 RPM's too. Very close to what the LaCrosse V6 has for a peak. The CTS's torque increases to 250 lb-ft though at 3000 RPMs. I think the big difference in the LaCrosse's 3.6 is the intake manifold, which probably does not have the variable feature, saving a bit of cost. The Aura's 3.6 is more like the CTS's.
Comments
My 07 SRX is a big improvement over the original interior. I think that it could be better, particularly the bottom half of the door panels.
A parked vehicle with a dead power steering pump will be very difficult to turn. However, if the vehicle is moving steering should be possible.
Coming from a Lexus to a Cadillac is like going from a Buick Park Avenue to a Cadillac. I test drove an LS430 around the time I bought my 2002 Cadillac Seville STS. The Lexus experience is all hype. If you've driven a Park Avenue, you've driven a Lexus LS.
BMW and Mercedes to Cadillac? I guess that would be like going from the flashy, fun hot Vegas showgirl who will take you for everything you got to the less glamorous yet very pretty girl next door who is faithful, reliable, friendly, and respectful of your needs.
Interestingly, though, the *better* first gen CTS was actually the Buick Lacrosse CXS. Same suspension, same handling, same engine. Loads less money. And a better interior, actually(plus you could see out of it to park). Just no manual and FWD instead of RWD.
But the 2nd gen, despite being as ugly as sin on the outside compared to the first gen one, is a larger, more capable car that blows the doors off of a typical E class and nips at the heels of a base 5 series. Not too bad. Actually a massive improvement in every area other than the exterior.
There is a fatal flaw in the company's execution, philosophy and core mission statement. The only analysis that I can make of it is that top management is unable or unwilling to bring the necessary resources to bear that would result in such world class quality. Top GM management needs replaced with those that have demonstrated success in high quality vehicle manufacturing such as from Toyota. The CEO should not receive a dime of compensation until GM cars regularly appear with far above indicators on surveys such as Consumer Reports.
Their electronics have consistently been troublesome (per Consumer Reports) and with the same problems year after year. They never fix the root problem of unreliable or poorly designed/manufactured electrical components that do not meet long term reliability and MTBF standards.
GM is typical of most US corporate top down leadership that is about short term profits and lip service only instead of getting it done the way it should be done. I'm frustrated that an American company is unable to get its act together and make quality their number one goal and put their money into it.
I've owned many GM cars, attended what was the GMI engineering school. and still own GM cars the latest being a DTS and a GMC and they all have had gremlins in the electronics that are more than just an inconvenience. These problems are very expensive for the customer to fix if not under warranty. The fixes are still costly to GM also.
You really are twistin here. How can you say the CTS and the LaCrosse have the same suspension? Completely different everything including suspension types. I do agree the LaCrosse has a better interior than the first CTS though. It is a very nice car for those who actually drove it.
The first generation Lucerne CXS was also similar - Cadillac suspension and that great V8. Mated with the 4 speed automatic, it was wonderful. The gears were suddenly NOT too tall and the shift points were spot on. Then they ruined it by dropping in a three times as expensive to fix 5 speed automatic. Too busy and that magical mid 90s S class glide was gone. Oh, and loads more money to repair.
The other Lucerenes were bland gutless taxis as well. They may have the same name, but it might as well have been like the difference between a typical Mercedes and a AMG version of it - two totally different animals in actual driving. But 99% of people never actually drove the CXS version of either line before they started messing with it (iirc, roughly 2005-2007 models only)
Buick's problem was that they didn't make these versions the ONLY ones that you could buy. The 3.8 in the Lucerne is a tragic thing, and minus the magnetic ride suspension(we're talking Corvette suspension technology!), it's a total wallowing, lurching disappointment.
Moral - if you want people to buy your cars, only market the best version. Mini knows this as does Porsche and a few others. You don't impress people with a market flooded with taxis.
Could you tell me why you think this. Believe me I am intimately intimate with the LaCrosse and everything about them. Just cannot figure out how the CTS and CXS have the same suspension.
This is the thing GM really need to fix, to recent survey mentioned in MT mag (I think its JDPower's, but I maybe wrong) a huge 60% of customers consider Japanese or Korean imports for purchase, and rising. The percentage of domestic potential customers dropped to about 50%. However, the number for domestics drops further AFTER said participants visit the dealerships. The majority of customers tend to change their minds after the dealership experience, which in the domestic's case, often cited as inadequate, uninviting, or unprofessional. Fix this first if Cadillac wish to even get customers take another look at Cadillac. Remember this, MB has horrific reliability but customers keep coming there, because at least the customer service is still 1st class. Cadillac can do the same.
In Germany itself BMW and MB are BOTH high and low class players. You can find plenty stripped down 3-series or C-class serving in taxi fleets. Remember that even A/C is optional for total base BMW 316 in Germany. The C-class cabs? Forget leather or even vinyl seats, all interior surfaces are either plastic or fabric, tiny 4-cyl gas/diesel engines with manual tranny.
There are many low end players from Audi/BMW/MB you dont see in US. A2/A and B-class subcompact MPVs, cost about $15-20k in average. Outside US, the 1-series actually serve as a low to middle class product. The base 116i comes no more loaded than a base Honda Civic. AC, alloy wheels, auto climate control, and even auto-up/down windows are optional. Naturally, these bargain basement cars cost a low end average of $20-25k.
This rule unfortunately doesnt apply in US and many other countries. Germany, like Japan and Korea, can honor its national brands as both a low end and high-end marque. They can spend $10k or $100k on the same brand with pride. Hence there's no need for upscale divisions of Toyota-Honda-Nissan like Lexus-Acura-Infiniti. Some may argue that Toyota is starting to sell Lexus in Japan, but remember the most expensive ones (Crown royal-Majesta-Dinasty costing north of $80k) still proudly wear Toyota badge. This is whats missing in America, try selling a 50k+ Chevy and see who'll buy. Corvette is an exception of this rule, due to its loooonnggg history. Nobody's at fault, just different mindset. The Americans perception of the germans as luxury brands prevent them from bringing the smaller fish to the US pond.
"The Lexus LS is not in the S-class refinement range either. It may be somewhat better than the E-class, but not much. The Genesis is a good car for the money, but is not much more than the Toyota Avalon. "
Please remember that Lexus has been around for a mere 20 year period, while MB's been trolling the luxury realm for 50 yrs. The Genesis is a decent near-luxury car, ala Buick and Acura (or what Acura used to be). I still have my issues with Gen's pricing, but otherwise there's no problem with it. Toyota decides not to rebadge the Crown line as Lexus, that offer S-class refinement the LS (Toyota Celsior) doesnt for obvious reason: the customers are NOT ready to buy an 80-100k Lexus, much less a Toyota.
Okay, they don't have EXACTLY the same suspension, but the upgraded suspension components in the CXS were many of the same ones used in the first gen CTS. Driving the CXS of that year, it was clear that it was by far the stiffest and most agile suspension ever put into any Buick. A real surprise.
Then they toned it down two years later and get rid of the 3.6. A shame, too, since the 3.6 was tuned for low end torque instead of HP. So while on paper it made nearly 20HP less than the CTS setup, it hit maximum torque at about 1400-1600rpm - about 400-500rpm lower than the 3.6 in the first and current gen CTSs. It pulls exactly like a small block V8 as a result.
GM of course blew it. Stuff that 3.6 tuned for torque like that in a Pontiac or the new Malibu and they'd blow Honda and Toyota's bland sedans out of the water.
The most popular reasons for buying imports:
1) Reliability and quality
2) Resale value
The most popular reasons for customers buying a domestic brand are:
1) Patriotism
2) Cheap maintenance
3) Heavy discounts offered
Did you see anything related to quality there? Nope. Plain and simple. This partly explains how the CTS keep rising in sales, many simply justify their purchase with "Buy American". Blinded patriotism as far as I can see. No offense to those who believe in the slogan, but I simply dont.
Now if Cadillac can raise the bar on customer service (up to Acura's standard perhaps), ease on price a bit, and the CTS coupe really makes it into the showrooms, you can bet I'll visit the Cadi dealership soon.
Agreed. The coupe further proves they are on the right track.
I still see no rave reviews on the former CTS in this forum....still waiting. The 2005 might have been raw with a m/t (are you sure there was a manual in the non-V model??) but the entire package was odd and interior well below luxury nameplate standard.
To me, if the car looks cheap, the incentives are built in after 1 month on the market. That's the Caddy strategy.
Your 2005 CTS 3.6 with 40K miles is now fetching: ($32,245 - 36,445)
Trade $14,501 - Private Sale $16,415 - Dealer Retail $18,093
With these options included
Leather and Wood Steering Wheel Trim
Bose Audio
Anti-Theft Alarm System
5-Speed Automatic Transmission
17 Inch Wheels
Stability Control
Satellite Radio System
Power Moonroof
Power Driver Seat w/Memory
Power Front Passenger Seat
Xenon High Intensity Discharge Headlights
You'd be hard pressed to get $14K at trade today.
Not a luxo value holder.
Regards,
OW
MY most popular reasons for customers buying a domestic brand are:
1) Excellent reliability and durability - especially Buick and Cadillac.
2) Beautiful styling.
3) Very cost-effective to purchase and maintain and repair
MY most popular reasons for avoiding imports:
1) Bland, grotesque, or alien styling
2) Arrogant dealers
3) Would need to repent your sins if you need to repair them.
The 3.6 in the LaCrosse was not the same engine as the CTS's, but was retuned. The 2009 LaCrosse is getting the last of the 3800's before production is suspended. The next generation LaCrosse will be on a new platform.
***
They seem to share many of the same parts. Sure, the RWD/FWD is a big difference, but it definitely feels like a poor man's CTS or very close to it. Very little body lean, no lurching between gears, and no throttle lag due to finally having enough torque. The upcoming platform and engines are likely to be another taxi. I have no faith in GM to put their best foot forward any more, at least not in the U.S.
Oh - it was the same 3.6VVT engine. Just they fiddled with the computers to favor torque over speed. It has a surprisingly European feel to it. Or did, until they ruined it. Mush like how Lexus had a perfect package in the IS300 and messed with it. The IS350 is overpowered and too heavy.(and too expensive) - the IS250 is a gutless wonder. So GM isn't the only one who makes mistakes. But they sure seem to make about 20 times the bad choices of their competition lately.
The mother of all bad mistakes will be decided by GM in the next 2 weeks!
Let's get ready for some pretty drastic stuff.
Regards,
OW
You seem to forget that GM may have no choice in that. Cerebus is choking off the elegibility of customers to get financing (700 or higher credit score) in what seems like a play to force GM to take Chrysler in exchange for the rest of GMAC.
Well, isn't that amazing. GM is FORCED to merge with Chrysler. How apropos!
Cerebus might as well run the whole show because they've got GM where they want them, correct? They will have a big say in things at the end of the day. I am sure they know everything needed to turn this conglomeration around! :sick:
Regards,
OW
What I find to be the most dissapointing aspect of the whole situation is how Chrysler ends up a rotting carcass in the end, not because of bad business decisions, but because they got "gobbled up" and the regurgitated by Mercedes, then sold to a bunch of incompetents who have no business being in the car making business.
Who knows, maybe Chrysler survives a merger w/ GM as a fleet only or mostly fleet company, thus allowing GM to make money selling to fleets thru their Chrysler arm, yet prop up their own brands resale value.
Think of a Sebring on the same platform as a G6, with a plainer (NOT cheaper) interior being sold mostly to the Avis' of the world. Because it runs on the same platform, it should be cheaper to make than it is now, but the value is built into the GM versions because of the higher trim levels and better engines they would have as retail cars.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007270
No, no, no. Not even close to shared or even similar parts. But I do agree with the best Buick for handling ever.
Go drive a 2006 LaCrosse CXS with the sport package. It really feels like a typical Honda or European sedan. A huge change from the typical GM car. I'm just upset that they de-tuned it for their older buyers again. It seems as if every time GM makes a good car(like the GTO), they mess with it and turn it into a soft potato after a few years.
Regards,
OW
The Camry/Lexux ES and W cars have very similar suspension hardware components. The CX / CXL were tuned to be very similar to the Camry/ES(ES has a softer ride with more roll than Camry/CX/CXL). The CXS was tightened up quite a bit but nowhere near the Accord which rides pretty hard over small impacts(tarstrips).
I'm just upset that they de-tuned it for their older buyers again.
The CXS was dropped and replaced by the V8 Super. Is this the vehicle that you feel they greatly revised the suspension? It does have performance Bilstein monotube shocks for better control.
It’s no GNX, and 20 years later, it is almost a second slower to 60 mph. It is, however, unexpectedly competent and quite reasonably priced. Our Jared Gall called it “easily the best-driving Buick in recent history” and said if not for the omnipresent torque steer, it might drive better than many Lexuses, a claim he made while scanning the heavens for swine on the wing.
The LaCrosse Super wasn’t designed to be a sports sedan, with all the comparisons that invites, and is instead billed as a “luxury touring sedan.”
It is interesting to note that the Buick stops in less distance, holds onto the skidpad longer, and is quicker and faster than any of its platform-mates, with shocking high-speed stability, especially considering its roots and the badge on its nose.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/quickest_cars_0_60_mp- h/the_quickest_sedans_of_2008_30_000_to_40_000_feature/2008_buick_lacrosse_super- _feature
Hey, Jim Press from almighty Toyota is running Chrysler. If he can make Toyota a wonderful successful company why could he not do the same with Chrysler? Oh, I know, it was the previous management that was screwed up.
I like the idea of keeping the Chrylser car plants running to supply fleet. Keep the midsize and compact car lines just for fleet. Keep a Chrysler name on them. Keep improving them and replacing them based on GM platforms but keep the GM name off them. I still think my idea of making the Ram Pick Ups as GMC is a great idea. Will need to close a few more GM plants though and keep a few of the Dodge plants to do this.
The CTS is here
Both engines are 2008 model year. The LaCrosse's low end torque may be somewhat better, but is clearly about 10% less than the CTS's at higher engine speeds. Where the torque is most useful, at around 3000 RPMs, the CTS has more torque.
Regards,
OW
LaCrosse - 1600rpm is where it hits its plateau(and where it basically stays within 5-10lb-ft torque all the way up to redline. The CTS is at 2300rpm. That might not seem like a lot, but the LaCrosse feels like a diesel in how quickly and linear the torque is in all gears.(the automatic in both wants to shift at about 1800rpm or so)
700rpm difference is huge for a GM engine/transmission combo.
It's not 0-60 times that matter. Or HP. It's how low and how quickly it develops that power and whether the gearing is set up to utilize it or not.
Around town, the LaCrosse 3.6 is a far better choice. Out on the highway at 75mph+, the CTS is a far better choice as it's finally starting to get up to speeds where you can use the power that it has.
Now, true, the Super is faster, but it's also heavier, more money, and has torque steer that's really quite annoying. It feels like what Lexus did with the IS300 when they "supersized" it to the IS350. It lost that magic balance between power and weight. It got heavy and went from a sport sedan to a muscle car type of driving experience.
Curb weight: 3791 lb
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 323 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm (too high - given the 4 speed GM transmission)
Curb Weight: 3568 lb
Power 240 HP@ 6,000 rpm
Torque 225 ft lb@ 2,000 rpm(though essentially the same at 1600 as well)
Note - exact same transmission for both. Oops. Massive throttle lag and lurching downshifts in the Super and none of that in the CXS. I know which one drives better in actual traffic.
The new CTS - yes, it's vastly better than any of the old designs. But it's also a lot of money, especially used, compared to a CXS.
the CTS had 3.42:1 axle ratio with a six speed automatic: 4.02, 2.36, 1.53, 1.15, .85 and .67 - tires are P235/55R17 standard
second gear is 2.36x3.42= 8:1 for the CTS,
5.75:1 for the LaCrosse
Your computations are nonsense :P
The 2005 3.6 CTS did it in 15.02/94.1 MPH
The gearing argument yields similar results anyway. Both are mediocre at best. The Honda Accord is a over half-second faster the both, costs less, lasts longer and gets higher gas mileage.
Oh, but it doesn't have mindless steering and a pillowy ride. That's where it fails.
Regards,
OW
I personally like engines with a more diesel like torque curve as they are better to drive in traffic and scoot in and out without having to floor it. It makes for a very nice and quiet ride. Good speed, good get-up-and-go, and very quiet and refined while doing it. The Lucerne CXS is also the same, btw - very 1990s Mercedes S class in its feel. Quick, quiet, and hardly ever shifts that you notice.(in this case, fewer gears is a good thing, since nobody drives either Buick 100+mph)
1/2 second faster? Proof?
Costs less? Than what - a LaCrosse or CTS?
Lasts longer? Well, where are all of those 1988-vintage Accords with the pop-up lights that were once common? I still see PLENTY of Buick Park Avenues and LeSabres of my car's vintage.
The LaCrosse's performance is very good with the 3.6. A comparison test that included the Chrysler 300 with a 3.5 V6 and 5 speed transmission showed the LaCrosse was faster. The LaCrosse is not a sports sedan though. Nor is the Chrysler 300c.
1 - Whomp on the gas. The car takes 1/2 a second at least to respond and unlock the torque converter.
2 - It slams down two gears(ouch?) and revs itself up for about half a second while the car literally doesn't move. This is the dreaded "wide-open-throttle-lag" of most large V6 sedans(GM and Ford are the worst offenders here by far) Hugely noisy and strained sounding.
3 - You start moving. Quickly, but a full second plus your reaction time went by before anything happened. This means you have to actually pre-plan such moves. In the CXS, though, it's the first Buick in decades that I didn't have this problem in.
Manual aside of course. The CTS with manual is a whole other animal. All of these issues go away because you can chose which gear to be in and it always stays there. None of this skipping gears to improve MPG nonsense or going into overdrive when slowing down or other idiocy. (not a fan of automatics myself)
Now if only they would start shipping those nice diesel engines that they use in Europe and Australia over. 40-50mpg and great in-town performance.
It's looks are faster than the Buick in park and has more interior room than the CTS. Costs less and there are so many on the road now. Some one has a standard and it isn't Caddy.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
I am rather suprised that you find the clunky 4 speed in the LaCrosse to be reponsive. Perhaps it is more because of the performance gearing in the axle ratio than because the transmission is responding. With the 3.69:1 axle ratio you are basically a half gear lower than with the usual 2.80:1 axle ratio.
Toyota is going to be the global leader in cars anyway. For $10K less, the Accords of the world will be the new Caddies for the foreseeable future, IMHO. Just enough luxury with attractive style.
Regards,
OW
As far as Toyota weakness, this just in:
Toyota Motor Corp.'s China car sales beat General Motors Corp.'s in the first nine months of the year, as the Japanese company threatens to end GM's 77-year reign as the world's largest automaker.
GM's loss of market share in China, where it has ranked second among overseas carmakers for a decade, along with slumping U.S. demand may cost it the global sales crown. Last year, it beat Toyota by 3,100 vehicles worldwide.
Doesn't sound like the big T is having trouble in China, at least.
Global Leader
Regards,
OW
This has a little to do with it, but it's mostly because it has 95% of its maximum torque at about 1500-1600rpm. You start moving *much* quicker - like a V8. And the VVT technology keeps it in the maximum torque range up and down the rpm ranges. It really does pull like a diesel in that the thrust is almost always the same optimal level no matter what you are doing.
It also shifts less as a result, since the nearly linear torque delivery results in less need to shift. I think GM modified the shifting in the transmission a bit as well because of this. Very "diesel" like - just obviously not a diesel. Gotta love VVT
Of course, WHY GM can't use VVT in every engine is beyond me. It would really give them an enormous sales advantage if they made all of their cars with it and made them favor low rpm torque over HP.(especially given the type of conservative person who generally buys GM cars)