Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

readerreader · September 2007

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-forum-2008-beyond/116426-post-- pics-your-new-08s-here.html#post1200781

There is more at the link, but these are my favorite:

readerreader · September 2007

qbrozen · September 2007

nice pics! I didn't think very much of the looks before, but your pics have made me notice some real nice details.

carnaught · September 2007

I really like it in red. The car IMHO really beats the pants off the STS. The interior looks more high end than the STS's for example.

shipo · September 2007

Until you sit in the back seat and find your knees half way to your chin. :P

fedlawman · September 2007

It looks very good - classy and aggressive at the same time. I like it.

If GM could have chopped 4" off the wheelbase and lightened it up by 500 lbs, it might have trumped the 335i :surprise:

Once again, GM puts in a good effort but misses the bullseye. Oh well, 2nd place is pretty good too.

habitat1 · September 2007

I'm sorry, but I guess I will never understand GM's styling philosophy.

Starting with a positive - the interior gets a "most improved" grade compared to the fugly GM interiors of yesteryear. But the steering wheel looks like it came out of a truck and my overall impression is that there was a committee of three fighting with aluminum, chrome and plastic to see who came out ahead.

But the exterior? Now we know where Mattel's laid off toy designers went when they outsourced production to China. Am I the only one that expects a Rock-um Sock-um robot to be driving this thing? And if that chrome guy thought he got shortchanged on the interior, he certainly made up for it on the exterior. The front grill and fascia is about as ugly as I've seen on any car north of $20k. Make that any car, period.

I'm curious as to what the Cd is for this bulky box. I'm not necessarily a fan of giving a wind tunnel complete control over exterior design, but this car looks like it would lose to a vertical sheet of plywood in "slipperyness". I recently saw where the Pontiac Solstice had a Cd of 0.45 (compared to a Boxster's 0.28) resulting in horrific performance and wind noise above 70 mph. I wouldn't be suprised if Caddilac borrowed those engineering geniuses from Pontiac and had them apply their skills to this slab of chrome and steel.

Sorry, there isn't a low enough price GM could put on this car that would ever cause me to give it a second look. The chrome guy won, but he's not getting a prize from me.

circlew · September 2007

Habitat, well said from my point of view. The interior looks like a "Trick-My-G37" and I can't get past the edged-box exterior.

Just doesn't do it for me, either.

Regards,
OW

readerreader · September 2007

I'm sorry, but I guess I will never understand GM's styling philosophy.

Starting with a positive - the interior gets a "most improved" grade compared to the fugly GM interiors of yesteryear. But the steering wheel looks like it came out of a truck and my overall impression is that there was a committee of three fighting with aluminum, chrome and plastic to see who came out ahead.

But the exterior? Now we know where Mattel's laid off toy designers went when they outsourced production to China. Am I the only one that expects a Rock-um Sock-um robot to be driving this thing? And if that chrome guy thought he got shortchanged on the interior, he certainly made up for it on the exterior. The front grill and fascia is about as ugly as I've seen on any car north of $20k. Make that any car, period.

I'm curious as to what the Cd is for this bulky box. I'm not necessarily a fan of giving a wind tunnel complete control over exterior design, but this car looks like it would lose to a vertical sheet of plywood in "slipperyness". I recently saw where the Pontiac Solstice had a Cd of 0.45 (compared to a Boxster's 0.28) resulting in horrific performance and wind noise above 70 mph. I wouldn't be suprised if Caddilac borrowed those engineering geniuses from Pontiac and had them apply their skills to this slab of chrome and steel.

Sorry, there isn't a low enough price GM could put on this car that would ever cause me to give it a second look. The chrome guy won, but he's not getting a prize from me.
==========================================================

Brilliant!

That means it's working.

It polarizes, therefore it has a point of view. No more of this "Variations on a Bar of Soap" styling punctuated by a "let's copy BMW" when everybody panics at the eleventh hour looking for "the character line".

Cadillacs have never been for the ordinary, the bread-and-butter people (historically speaking).

Cadillac V-16 by Hartmann
(1937)

Let us also not forget how Cadillac forced Mercedes-Benz to use the tailfin. That is what you call design leadership:

Created this:

That is what you call design leadership.

So, I am glad you hate it. That means it's brilliant.

kdshapiro · September 2007

I guess the Aztec is "brilliant" also.

Judging by the pictures I also think they missed the mark.

circlew · September 2007

Bottom line, when you have to look back 40 years (as it is with the really great cars from the US, IMHO, - Camaro, Firebird,etc.) to see real style and creativity, this is the same drill from Caddy. IMO, target missed with the CTS again. Time for a few more laps around "The Ring" to loose weight in '09.

Here is an example of the one I liked the best...of course and as usual, this line was axed instead of devloped. Perhaps the "Taurus" strategy will come to GM to resurrect "El'D".

Regards,
OW

scottm123 · September 2007

I was never a fan of the previous CTS.
I work with someone who has one and it's just "cheap" in comparison to other cars in the field.

Just looking at these pics, the 08 is a much improved car.
Looks good!

vic10 · September 2007

Well, the Edsel was polarizing...but that wasn't necessarily a good thing....

The last Caddy I liked was the 1999. Still carried remnants of the "classic" Caddy look. The mushy looking 2000 was just soooo boring. There were hopes when the edge look was to come out but somehow the look was also boring, and didn't look very integrated (the 300C also has the slab sided edgy look but it comes off better...much better I think). I walk past a 2007 STS in the parking lot every morning and it's about as exciting looking as a Checker cab. Finally got to the point where I could easily afford one and suddenly found I didn't want one.

Having said that, I think the CTS (and not the STS)really benefited from the 2008 restyle. Much more interesting exterior. Really like the agressive front end. And the interior looks much more refined--though I have one issue, aside from that hugh looking steering wheel: The dual climate controls on either side of the console. So if you're solo in the car and want to change setting you have to lean around to get both sides working in parallel??

readerreader · September 2007

I guess the Aztec is "brilliant" also.
==============================================

That is a non sequitur.

The success of the car will be in the sales. The verdict is almost unanimous that it will do at least as well as its predecessor (which was phenomenal) and probably better.

scottm123 · September 2007

The dual climate controls on either side of the console. So if you're solo in the car and want to change setting you have to lean around to get both sides working in parallel??

I don't think so.
There's an Auto button there.
Most likely, like with all the other cars I've seen, the Auto button gives the driver full control of the climate control system.
The Pass button allows the passenger to control their side.
Look again, you'll see that the Pass button is illuminated, not the Auto.

qbrozen · September 2007

I guess the Aztec is "brilliant" also.

HUH??? Is there a very large group of people who LOVE the Aztec's looks buried in a bunker somewhere in the US, because I've never met anyone who LOVEs it.

When people say a car is "polarizing," they mean most folks either love it or hate it (the 2 poles). In the case of the Aztek, people either responded with "eh" or "ew." That ain't polarizing.

kdshapiro · September 2007

Agreed, sales tells the story.

louiswei · September 2007

Agree on the steering wheel, it looks HUGE!!

Overall a better car than the '07 IMO although I was never a fan of the CTS. More like an evolutionary design than revolutionary I guess...

plekto · September 2007

The steering wheel comes in three trims. One is some sort of rubberized nonsense, then there is leather. Evidently they did the foam/rubbery thing to match the leather one in size.(some of the leather interior ones don't have a leather wrapped wheel, so they look like they cheated a bit)

There's also a thinner one on the base model. I think it looks best.

Pros: Much better car in every way inside and underneath.
Cons: Sheet metal on it is hideous in person compared to the older one's exterior. Only black or a very dark color serves to make it look smaller and hide the myriad of hideous angles.(looks very sharp in black, btw). The sunroof is also a joke - it's huge but still so far back that the driver can't see OUT of it. It just creates a massive lens as it's slightly curved in the wrong direction/way. The interior really feels awful in the summer heat with that thing beating heat down on the back of your neck(right at the driver's hearrest seems to eb the focal point)

The flat aluminum rims look better than the chromed as well.

louiswei · September 2007

Wait...wait a minute...

Are you telling me that there are actually CTSs that don't have leather-wrapped steering wheel? Are you s***ting me? We are talking about a Cadillac, which last I checked is a luxury brand, here right?

I seriously doubt that this is true but if it is then Cadillac is just being the Cadillac of the old. Which is bad...

plekto · September 2007

There was a small bit of print in the corner of the sticker:

"This model was made without wood trim on the steering wheel" - Since it didn't have leather, either, it was some sort of other material. I think it's an early supply problem or something. The wood one has a thinner diamater. But the wheel isn't large by any means - just about right.

Oh - the thing about the leg room... That's the underside of the dash. Most cars have a very angled area that you hit your knees before you're totally out of space. The CTS - they made it very curved and shallow so there's a lot of legroom. (ie - dash is less of a bloated mess and a tiny bit slimmer.)

Seats are lovely. I'm 5'8" and no problems. I'm used to big Euro style headrests, so zero complaints. love the stitching. Almost every surface that you touch has some sort of material other than hard plastic(the window sills being my favorite - actual softness for once). Ford could learn a lot from this. Shoot, Toyota and Honda as well - the interior makes an Accord look like a rental car, to be honest. GM's done a top-notch effort that is equal to VW/Audi(yes, amazing - let's hope this isn't a singular occurance)

Drives nicely. IMO, I liked the regular non DI better. Why? The DI feels typical top-end powerish like everyone else. The regular seems a bit better balanced between HP and Torque at low rpms. And it's cheaper. AND I don't have to get leather and all the other crud to get manual.

Oh - I sat in one without the sunroof as I mentioned. Very nice - makes the car feel a LOT less squashed inside.

Love the radio controls as well. Nice big, fat, ANALOG dials. (it's been shown that people spend about alf the time and brainpower dealing with dials compared to switches for tasks that aren't on/off decisions) Clock in the center is also keeping with the same theme. Digital is SO 1980s.

Lovely back seats. Cudos to GM for giving the rear seatbacks storage and the rear seats their own A/C vent.

Minor gripes:
- Wierd glovebox design. Oh well.
- Trunk needs more storage areas at the sides.
- First thing I'd do if I got it home would be to remove all of the useless engine plastic. I hate that don't look at it nonsense. Show me metal and bits under the hood. Easy to fix, though.

- Traction control switch needs to NOT be buried in the dash with all of the other buttons.
- flat aluminum or stainless steelwhat a concept!) would be better than the blingy chrome. Or anodized black like on Benzes?
- needs dark anodized rims as an option for the darker colors.(CTS "Night Edition" or something)
- Rear seat cupholder/armrest needs work - doesn't fit the rest of the interior's look
- Why can't we get a split/fold seat without buying leather?

Overall, I rate the car as 90% perfect/8% good or needs a bit of work. 1-2% not right(mostly the chrome on the exterior) It's not a "dear lord" you get when looking at a S500, but it's a mile away from the Lexus blandness or the joke Ford is doing.

circlew · September 2007

Cadillac is just being the Cadillac of old. Which is EXPECTED...nothing new to me, an former and wary customer.

Regards,
OW

shipo · September 2007

"Oh - the thing about the leg room... That's the underside of the dash. Most cars have a very angled area that you hit your knees before you're totally out of space. The CTS - they made it very curved and shallow so there's a lot of legroom. (ie - dash is less of a bloated mess and a tiny bit slimmer.)"

True there's lots of leg room up front if:
A) You like sitting with your legs almost straight out in front of you, and

You're less than six foot two or so.

The one that I drove barely fit my 6'3" business associate when he was in the driver's seat, however, when we switched sides, he was unable to get comfortable in the passenger's seat.

Then there's the rear seat leg room. What a joke, my 1999 328i had more usable room than the new CTS, in spite of the official measurements or even the cavernous "look" of the rear leg well.

Best Regards,
Shipo

scottm123 · September 2007

Ya know, it's funny how some car manufacturers can pull this off and others fail miserably.

I'm 6' and like to drive with my legs in front of me, so I need a car with leg room up front.
The adverse affect of my seat position is the lack of room behind me.
I don't have passengers most of the time, but when I do, I want them to be comfortable... not too much to ask for a car in this price range.

The TL, although not huge on the outside, pulls this off.
No, it's not a TON of legroom, but you can sit behind someone in comfort.

I currently drive an 07 G35.
Again, it looks smaller, but the rear legroom is ample. I can sit behind my driving position and my knees don't hit the seat or my chin... I'm comfy.

I have not yet sat in the back of the CTS, and I can't go by misleading pics on their website, but why would there be a lack of leg room back there???
The car is clearly larger than the ones listed above, but fails to provide comfort in the back seats, if the passengers in front are not willing to push themselves forward to do so. :confuse:

pucks · September 2007

Leather wrapped steering wheel is standard on the 08 CTS - I have no idea where you are getting your information.

shipo · September 2007

"I have not yet sat in the back of the CTS, and I can't go by misleading pics on their website, but why would there be a lack of leg room back there???"

Simple, the lower seat cushion is so low to the floor that the rear seat passengers (who don't have the luxury of a deep footwell like the front seat passengers) need to ride with their knees way up in the air. The only time I can think that that arrangement might have been useful was back in the very early 1970s when I was fifteen and I had to sit in the back next to my sixteen year old step-sister who always wore very short skirts.

Best Regards,
Shipo

cdnpinhead · September 2007

". . .next to my sixteen year old step-sister who always wore very short skirts."

This verges on TMI (too much info), but is interesting all the same.

habitat1 · September 2007

That is what you call design leadership.

No, it's what I call ugly.

I do accept what's ugly to me, may be beautiful to others, since a few Aztecs, Gremlins and Pacers did sell. But if you lined up that Caddilac next to a TL/RL, IS/GS, 3/5 series, A4/A6, E/C class, Jaguar, and, just for fun, a 911 and F430 and asked my friends and family to rank them on beauty, I'm willing to bet $10,000 that fewer than 10% wouldn't have the Caddilac dead last. And that's also where Caddilac ranks among those others in resale value - which should tell you something about it's lack of enduring beauty, even if you are tickled with it now.

We may not agree on whether Frank Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier was the better architect, but, IMO, that Caddy is the equivalent of a design-from-a-cracker-box vinyl sided McMansion.

As far as Caddilac's sales success, we are talking about the division of bankrupt flirting GM that has an buyer demographic somewhare between old and dead, correct?

P.S. The 1937 V16 is a different story. Not my cup of tea, but IMO it's considerably better looking, in a different sort of way, than the 2007 version. It also looks like it's Cd may be better than the 2007 version.

nextone1 · September 2007

I've lined up the Audi, BMW, Acrua, Infiniti, MB, etc., and will walk by all of them and buy the CTS. I'm not middle-aged, much less somewhere between old and dead. This is fact--not opinion.

plekto · September 2007

No, this one had a little blurb that there was no wood trim and no leather on the steering wheel either. Manually typed in on the invoice from the factory - odd, but some sort of production error.

It's a fine car. If you really are 6'3" or something... Well, it;s going to be tough to find any car that fits you. Claiming that the car is crap because you are outside of the normally designed size-range is a bit silly.

For the rest of us, it's a good vehicle.

shipo · September 2007

"It's a fine car. If you really are 6'3" or something... Well, it;s going to be tough to find any car that fits you. Claiming that the car is crap because you are outside of the normally designed size-range is a bit silly.

For the rest of us, it's a good vehicle."

Oh really? I'm only 5'8" and wouldn't willingly spend more than a few minutes in the back of a new CTS, in fact I don't think that my ten and thirteen year olds would like it back there either.

Best Regards,
Shipo

habitat1 · September 2007

I've lined up the Audi, BMW, Acrua, Infiniti, MB, etc., and will walk by all of them and buy the CTS. I'm not middle-aged, much less somewhere between old and dead. This is fact--not opinion.

Good for you, but may I make a suggestion? Make sure that you want to keep the car for 10+ years and 120k+ miles so that you don't get financially screwed by GM/Caddilac's horrific resale values. Because if you suddenly find that the boxy style and chrome crazed exterior are no longer for you, you will take a bath trying to find someone that wants it second hand. At least if you keep it long enough, resale won't matter as much.

pucks · September 2007

Maybe if you learned how to spell Cadillac you're arguments would be taken more seriously.

pucks · September 2007

All steering wheels are leather wrapped. There is an option to get wood on the steering wheel. That option is not currently available. So if you order a car with the B20 wood package - it will be deleted and a credit is given. However, the wheel is leather wrapped either way.

This is what will show on the window sticker:

UNIT PRODUCED WITHOUT:
SAPELE WOOD TRIM ON STEERING
WHEEL AND SHIFT KNOB

nextone1 · September 2007

Actually, I do keep my cars this long because they are GMs with great service--no need to dump 'em because of the horrific repair and maintenance costs of the imports.

fedlawman · September 2007

This has been discussed previously. Most American cars do depreciate quickly, but the Cadillac CTS is not one of them.

According to NADA, a 2004 CTS 3.6L with 50,000 miles, Bose stereo and sunroof shows a "clean trade-in value" of $19,300. That's very similar resale performance to the BMW 3-series and Infiniti G35 of the same vintage and original price.

blueguydotcom · September 2007

rofl

vic10 · September 2007

Interesting you would put the 911 in the beauty mix. They always reminded me of my mother's Hoover upright....

nextone1 · September 2007

More fact!

habitat1 · September 2007

According to NADA, a 2004 CTS 3.6L with 50,000 miles, Bose stereo and sunroof shows a "clean trade-in value" of $19,300. That's very similar resale performance to the BMW 3-series and Infiniti G35 of the same vintage and original price.

I will concede that is much better than average for GM, but I still think it's a couple of rungs down from the Japanese and German competitors.

What would that 2004 CTS 3.6L cost new? According to Edmunds, there are a lot of options that NADA appears to assume you have (luxury package, etc) in their resale figures. My guess is that an optioned 2004 CTS had an MSRP of $36-37k?

I bought a 2004 Acura TL w/ Navigation for $32k and everything was standard for that price. (I think MSRP was around $33.6k) Assuming 50,000 miles, it's NADA "clean trade in value" is $21,975, about $2,700 more than a CTS. If that CTS started with a $3,000+/- higher initial price, that's a significant ($5,700) depreciation difference over three years.

The 2004 330i that I considered had an MSRP of $38,500 and now has an NADA clean trade in value of $25,250. Nearly $6,000 higher and proportionally much better resale than the CTS.

P.S. Nextone1 - more "facts" for you.

imidazol97 · September 2007

>>So if you're solo in the car and want to change setting you have to lean around to get both sides working in parallel??

It's probably like out Buicks, you can cancel the separate adjustments for the passenger side and return the unit to single operation with settings the same for both halves.

imidazol97 · September 2007

>"...how to spell Cadillac ~~you're~~ your arguments would be taken more seriously."

pat · September 2007

~~you're~~ your

I knew that was coming... :sick:

Let's everyone drop the spelling ~~criteeks~~ critiques and just worry about the cars, 'kay?

habitat1 · September 2007

Interesting you would put the 911 in the beauty mix. They always reminded me of my mother's Hoover upright....

...And that 15 year old Hoover upright is probably worth more today than a 15 year old GM/Cadillac. So take out the 911 from my list, put in the Hoover upright, and I still think the CTS comes out last.

Personally, I'll take an Electrolux or Miehle.

fedlawman · September 2007

Your numbers are a little different than mine.

I think you're NADA value is optimistic (different zip code maybe?). I couldn't get NADA to show a 2004 BMW 330i with a trade-in higher than $25,225 - and that was a 330i with Auto, Nav, SP, PP, and HK. This 330i new would have had an MSRP of approx $41,400 (34,600 base, plus Auto 1500, Nav 1800, SP 1600, PP 1200, HK 700). That's 61% of it's original value.

NADA value for a fully equipped 2004 CTS 3.6 is $20,700. Assuming a $36,000 MSRP you get 57.5% of original value.

We can crunch numbers all day with different options but the results are basically going to be the same. I agree that the CTS doesn't hold it's value quite as well from MSRP as the BMW. However, with much deeper discounts at the time of purchase (easy to buy well below invoice with GM incentives), it's at least a wash.

nextone1 · September 2007

And I don't pay sticker.

renssils · September 2007

Having rented recently, each for a week, an Infiniti M35 and an Audi A6 3.2, I looked forwarded to trying out the 2008 Cadillac CTS, in which I sat this morning. Audi, Infiniti, Lexus and others need not worry about this would-be competitor. If anything, the CTS seems to a competitor for the Audi A4, BMW 3, Infiniti G35, Volvo S60 and other similarly priced cars. The CTS lacks so many features and benefits of the A6 and M35, none of which are absolutely needed, but do make driving more enjoyable for customers willing to spend $45,000 to $50,000 or more. In addition, I thought that the fit and finish wasn't as well done as the Audi and the Infiniti. The CTS's trunk is fully lined, but looks cheap. The $41,000 CTS had no back-sensors, no Bluetooth, no motorized steering column, a claustrophobic rear passenger area, no B-pillar vents, and an intrusive sunroof. A fully optioned CTS at a list price of $49,000 is overpriced, I think. I'd rather buy the Audi or the Infiniti and, in fact, I think that I will.

qbrozen · September 2007

well, if you look at what the discussion is about, the CTS is listed with the A4, 3-series, etc that you mention.

plekto · September 2007

The CTS is not Cadillac's smallest car, though. This perception that because it's less expensive than the competition it must be placed with the other makers budget cars seems to still be alive.

GM itself says that the car isn't "entry level" - they just don't sell their entry-level BTS here in the U.S. because it would fail.(actually it's not doing well in Europe, either). The CTS is their second from the bottom Cadillac, nonetheless, and is marketed towards the middle range import.(A6, G35, etc). Whether GM can manage to pull off what Hyundai seems to be doing to the Japanese makers remains to be seen.

In fact, the recent announcement about a smaller entry-level car(which won't sell) is probably their bringing the BTS over to kill this wrong image. Even if they don't sell more than a thousand a year, it will push the CTS up a notch in the reviews, where it competes better. It's NO 3 series - it's way too large to compete handling wise. But versus a 535i, things get a bit weirder.

qbrozen · September 2007

cars are listed at the top. I didn't make the list.

I agree, it is bigger than the others, no doubt.

Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles