Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

1196197199201202435

Comments

  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    The way this entire segment is inching up in size/weight, why even pretend to be a sport sedan anymore?

    Maybe Cadillac has the right idea after all. Give the customer what they want - 300+ horsepower, 19" wheels, chrome, leather, wood, bluetooth, and a 40 GB hard drive. :cry:
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Check out a fully decked out G35X @ $41K, the Cadillac is better looking and much lower in content and features.

    I LOVE the looks, and the interior is close to Audis in design and finish -- but the list of lacks is few BUT significant.

    No bluetooth, no full function voice commands, no real keyless system, no backup camera, a pedal parking brake and a really bad gauze sunroof.

    I really liked the driving experience of the new CTS, but it was floaty compared with the 2005 A6 I drove in.

    I keep thinking the CTS will be value -- the G35X with a similar sized wheelbase looks interesting.

    The CTS might intice a 5 series buyer -- sometime in the future, this one probably won't do it, tho. :confuse:
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    No bluetooth, no full function voice commands, no real keyless system, no backup camera, a pedal parking brake and a really bad gauze sunroof.
    ****
    All useless yuppie crap to break. Who honestly needs a voice command system or a camera in the rear for a sedan?

    The foot operated parking brake works very well and keeps an enormous amount of space in the middle console area free. This is one area that European cars have never gotten right. I mean - the only reason you would need to use the parking brake was if your brakes failed in an emergency. That's a big if, given all of the redundant sensors that you find in cars these days. Even then you could manage with the foot brake. Quicker as well I bet than trying to steer and pull on the brake.

    Yes, the sunroof is lame, but just get it without a sunroof. DUH. I never understood the need for a sunroof since they started placing them so far back you'd have to turn your head sideways while driving to actually see the sky.

    ****
    I really liked the driving experience of the new CTS, but it was floaty compared with the 2005 A6 I drove in.
    ****
    It's softer to be sure, but it's made to feel more like a 5 series. Softer but when you push it, it flies through corners. Do a search online for that video of the 2008 CTS-V prototype tearing around the Nurburing. At the end, it ends up right on that little Golf's rear end in seconds. Well over 100mph on the straights. It's no joke if you push it. That's something no Lexus manages to do - and no GM to date other than maybe a Corvette. Its times from what I've heard are very good as well - better than most of the Europeans in fact.

    (Even though it's a CTS-V, it's basically the sporty version of the 2008 CTS with just more power)
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    That's something no Lexus manages to do - and no GM to date other than maybe a Corvette. Its times from what I've heard are very good as well - better than most of the Europeans in fact.

    The problem is that little nagging thing called dependability....the last CTS-V was breakable.

    Regards,
    OW
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Who honestly needs a voice command system or a camera in the rear for a sedan?

    I agree with you on that.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "It's softer to be sure, but it's made to feel more like a 5 series. Softer but when you push it, it flies through corners."

    Oh puleeze. I am very familiar with the 5-Series and never would I call one soft. The CTS that I drove was in fact soft and no, it wouldn't fly through the corners.

    "Do a search online for that video of the 2008 CTS-V prototype tearing around the Nurburing."

    Here we go again, rockylee reincarnated. This discussion has nothing to do with factory tuner cars.

    After my fairly lengthy test drive of the CTS, I came away with a very favorable impression compared to the Gen 1 CTS, however, it is still a car that none of the other players in this space need worry about.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • scottm123scottm123 Member Posts: 1,501
    Who honestly needs a voice command system or a camera in the rear for a sedan?

    I can't remember the last time I used a voice command, but I personally love the backup camera.

    No, I don't need it, but it's an awesome option that I love having, and I use it every single day.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,499
    ". . .foot operated parking brake works very well and keeps an enormous amount of space in the middle console area free. This is one area that European cars have never gotten right. I mean - the only reason you would need to use the parking brake was if your brakes failed. . ."

    Spoken by one who has never driven a manual transmission-equipped car in San Francisco (or anywhere else that's really hilly), no doubt. The reason European cars have hand-operated "parking" brakes is because they're necessary if the car comes with a real transmission & the vast majority of cars in Europe do NOT sport an automatic. And, to clarify, I don't mean that it's only necessary when parking on a steep hill; it's extremely helpful when all you can see is sky & the stop sign & it's time to get the car moving without sliding backwards into the vehicle behind and/or killing the engine.

    Given the rest of your post (which I generally agree with), I'm moderately surprised that you don't favor the stone-simple ultra-reliable manual transmission, which allows you to shift when you want & how you want.

    Happy motoring.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Spoken by one who has never driven a manual transmission-equipped car in San Francisco (or anywhere else that's really hilly), no doubt. The reason European cars have hand-operated "parking" brakes is because they're necessary if the car comes with a real transmission & the vast majority of cars in Europe do NOT sport an automatic"

    Bingo. I have driven my manual tranny car on the hills of San Fransisco. One cannot launch the car on a 45 degree uphill (California St?) without the aid of the hand-operated parking brake. (Unless the car comes with an electronic aid to do so)
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Hmmm... Interesting comments from these "enthusiasts" whom one would get the impression they can handle a manual as well as Jackie Stewart. Hard to believe some of you can't do something as simple as hold the brake pedal and press the gas at the same time with your right foot while easing off the clutch. :confuse: Although, when I'm feeling lazy, I'll pull my hand brake. :P
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,499
    to those with superior skills.

    It's clear that some of us "enthusiasts" require quotes.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • vic10vic10 Member Posts: 188
    Don't think it's as much that the European cars come with manual trannies as that they also come with fairly weak engines so you'd have to rev the begeezus out of them to move from a stop on a hill. My last manual was a 350 cu.in. Firebird. Never during a 3 month stay in downtown SF did I need to use my emergency brake to help me get going from a stop on a hill. Never chirped a tire or spun a wheel either. Would imagine the CTS would be similar.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Ya! I'm lazy when I shift. I don't pretend to jackie Stewart, but after driving a stick shift for 20 years, it's second nature. Still it's much easier to apply the handbrake. Why make life difficult? Do I get a free lunch otherwise?
  • scottm123scottm123 Member Posts: 1,501
    I thought I read in the new C/D mag that the 08 CTS was offering a manual transmission as an option, but I don't see it anywhere on their website.

    Did I mis-read?
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    And, to clarify, I don't mean that it's only necessary when parking on a steep hill; it's extremely helpful when all you can see is sky & the stop sign & it's time to get the car moving without sliding backwards into the vehicle behind and/or killing the engine.

    Given the rest of your post (which I generally agree with), I'm moderately surprised that you don't favor the stone-simple ultra-reliable manual transmission, which allows you to shift when you want & how you want.
    ****

    Actually I like manuals - I'll never own an automatic again unless it's something special like a S class and I win the lottery or something.

    My Toyota has an E-Brake that's a pull lever under the dash - possibly the worst of all kinds. I've never had to engage it even on the steepest hills anywhere in California because I know how to deal with hills. (hint - you CAN brake and accelerate at the same time, you know...)

    Oddly enough my last car, a Mercedes, also had this type of parking brake. Go figure.

    Yes, it's nice I guess, but the brake on the GM is a simple push, push again to release type and works very well for hills if you want. Rev the engine, hit the clutch, and tap the brake to release it.(not like the rear brakes will do anything versus 300HP - you could probably go 50mph without noticing the parking brake was engaged).
  • scottm123scottm123 Member Posts: 1,501
    :D
    Thanks
  • renssilsrenssils Member Posts: 24
    Having driven Watkins Glen, Summit Point, and Virginia International Raceway, I know first-hand that there is a big difference between a car that excels on the track and a car that excels on the road. The CTS may have good track credentials, but as a vehicle to carry four passengers and their stuff on the road, the CTS faces tough competition for the dollars charged. Car reviews so often concentrate on the driver's seat to the exclusion of any other consideration. That's why I find Consumer Reports useful as well. My disappointment with the CTS is that GM's brilliant marketing campaign led me to expect a car with the interior room, features, and quality of the A6, 5-series, M35, and Volvo S80, but I found a competitor to the A4, 3-series, G35, and S60. I liked the CTS's instrument panel, but the rest of the CTS was undistinguished and the rear passenger area's small windows made for a feeling of incarceration.

    Backup cameras, Bluetooth, and other features do improve safety.

    I've had an Audi A6 4.2 and allroad 4.2, which have given me a benchmark to measure other cars and so I found the CTS lacking in what I want to buy. I'm eager to see the 2008 Infiniti M45x and the 2008 Audi A6 4.2.

    The CTS seems to be a nice car, but not for the money.
  • readerreaderreaderreader Member Posts: 253
    #10295 of 10295 Re: Disappointed by 2008 CTS [renssils] by renssils Sep 18, 2007 (3:11 pm)
    Replying to: renssils (Sep 17, 2007 10:21 am)
    Having driven Watkins Glen, Summit Point, and Virginia International Raceway, I know first-hand that there is a big difference between a car that excels on the track and a car that excels on the road. The CTS may have good track credentials, but as a vehicle to carry four passengers and their stuff on the road, the CTS faces tough competition for the dollars charged. Car reviews so often concentrate on the driver's seat to the exclusion of any other consideration. That's why I find Consumer Reports useful as well. My disappointment with the CTS is that GM's brilliant marketing campaign led me to expect a car with the interior room, features, and quality of the A6, 5-series, M35, and Volvo S80, but I found a competitor to the A4, 3-series, G35, and S60. I liked the CTS's instrument panel, but the rest of the CTS was undistinguished and the rear passenger area's small windows made for a feeling of incarceration.

    Backup cameras, Bluetooth, and other features do improve safety.

    I've had an Audi A6 4.2 and allroad 4.2, which have given me a benchmark to measure other cars and so I found the CTS lacking in what I want to buy. I'm eager to see the 2008 Infiniti M45x and the 2008 Audi A6 4.2.

    The CTS seems to be a nice car, but not for the money.

    =============================================================
    GM never led you to believe anything.
    You may have disappointed yourself.

    When--ever--has GM marketed the 2008 CTS against the 5-Series/A6/Infiniti-M? The 2007?

    The commercials barely started coming out last week.

    The car has always been slotted between the 3-Series and the 5-Series with the main advantage being interior room--not amenities.

    They always had the STS for that.

    Even the magazines grouped the old car there when reviewing it. All of them.

    You cannot find a car like the CTS with all its dimensions etc., for the same price. No other exists (another story altogether).

    image

    image

    image
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,687
    Yes, it's not hard to find a CTS listing at $40k or less, not optioned out, but way less than any A6 or 5er. Of course a $55k car will (and should) behave better.
  • readerreaderreaderreader Member Posts: 253
    Of course, by his definition, if the CTS is one Bluetooth and a platinum-embroidered sunshade away from the 5-Series, then it is way better than any 3-Series!

    Again, by his definition alone.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "You cannot find a car like the CTS with all its dimensions etc., for the same price."

    Agreed, however, Cadillac did a phenomonally poor job of using all of interior space, so much so that the CTS is considerably less comfortable to drive and ride in than a "smaller" 3-Series.

    Slice it and dice it any way you want, the CTS is inferior virtually every car in its chosen category, the Lexus IS being the possible single exception.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,687
    That's fine, I have no problem with criticisms within this group. I hope to go out the next week or so to see. I've already tried the G35, too tight. What might be a big advantage for the CTS (for me) is the availability w/o a sunroof - I need the headroom.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    You may be in luck there, my business associate who I drove the car with is a VERY big guy and he just fit headroom wise, however, he didn't like riding with his legs almost straight out in front of him.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • readerreaderreaderreader Member Posts: 253
    #10299 of 10301 Re: Disappointed by 2008 CTS [readerreader] by shipo Sep 19, 2007 (1:36 pm)
    Replying to: readerreader (Sep 19, 2007 1:19 pm)
    "You cannot find a car like the CTS with all its dimensions etc., for the same price."

    Agreed, however, Cadillac did a phenomonally poor job of using all of interior space, so much so that the CTS is considerably less comfortable to drive and ride in than a "smaller" 3-Series.

    Slice it and dice it any way you want, the CTS is inferior virtually every car in its chosen category, the Lexus IS being the possible single exception.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo

    ============================================================

    The Cadillac did an excellent job, since it is larger than any other car in its class on the inside.

    It may be less comfortable to drive "mentally" (for some) since it doesn't have the roundel on the front; but the CTS is in almost every way more comfortable than the 3-Series--which is the smallest car in its class.
    This we know.

    And we have not even gotten to the ride which was described thusly by Car and Driver:

    "On the street, our initial impression is that the CTS is more comfortable than a Sport-package-equipped BMW 3-series or Infiniti G35 without giving up much ultimate performance..."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/13537/full-test-2008-cadillac-cts-driving-- - impressions-page3.html

    "It also doesn’t hurt that even with a steeply raked rear window, the CTS offers a much larger and usable back seat (the smallest Caddy is similar in size to a 5-series BMW) than those in the smaller luxury sedans it competes with price-wise."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/13537/full-test-2008-cadillac-cts-the-verd- - ict-page5.html

    Indeed, it's "verdict" on the same page was:

    "Highs: Well-sorted chassis, bold exterior design, lots of passenger space, the best interior yet from GM."

    Shall I go on?

    Shall I find more reviews?

    No review of the 2008 CTS have ever compared it unfavorably with the competition based on interior room.
    That is physically impossible to do (according to the laws of physics).
    "Comfort" is subjective, but no dice there either.

    This car is not any more "inferior" than any other car in its class. It has its highs and lows like any other car there.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "The Cadillac did an excellent job, since it is larger than any other car in its class on the inside."

    I never said otherwise.

    It may be less comfortable to drive "mentally" (for some) since it doesn't have the roundel on the front; but the CTS is in almost every way more comfortable than the 3-Series--which is the smallest car in its class.
    This we know.


    You can't be serious. Go and drive them and then go and ride in them, front and back. I'm only 5'8" and the 3-Series is WAY more comfortable especially in the back. I find it very telling that even a Honda Civic Sedan is more comfortable to sit in the back seat than a CTS. Said another way, the GM engineer that decided to put the seats (both front and rear) so low to the floor and then not allow for enough leg room in the rear to allow a rear seat passenger’s lower thigh to comfortably rest on the seat cushion ought to be fired.

    "And we have not even gotten to the ride which was described thusly by Car and Driver:"

    Do you have any opinions of your own? Folks who buy cars based upon what a car rag says deserved what the get, a turkey. That said, while we're on the subject:

    "It also doesn’t hurt that even with a steeply raked rear window, the CTS offers a much larger and usable back seat (the smallest Caddy is similar in size to a 5-series BMW) than those in the smaller luxury sedans it competes with price-wise."

    Apparently they didn't sit in the back and simply compared the spec sheets. The CTS has one of the absolute worst back seat areas of any sedan I've ridden in in recent memory, errr, except the Lexus IS.

    "Highs: Well-sorted chassis, bold exterior design, lots of passenger space, the best interior yet from GM."

    Yes, there's lots of space, HIGHLY uncomfortable space, and the "Best interior yet from GM"? Geez, that's kind of like saying "The best filet mignon yet from Dairy Queen". :P

    "This car is not any more "inferior" than any other car in its class. It has its highs and lows like any other car there."

    Clearly you haven't driven the cars in this class yourself. The new CTS is a sloppy handler with an uncomfortable interior, questionable exterior looks, and as for the power rating on the V6, either the car is extremely obese or the 300 horsepower is wildly optimistic (or maybe a little of both).

    Please, before you argue specs and reviews, go DRIVE them yourself, you might just find that your rhetoric is a bit hollow.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • readerreaderreaderreader Member Posts: 253
    It doesn't strike me as irrational to trust the overwhelming consensus opinion of professional independent reviewers and others who have driven the car over one pointedly divergent account.

    As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I will do. You take care now.

    image

    image
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,499
    Thank you, for your incredibly helpful input, here and elsewhere.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    So you're saying that you'll buy a CTS based upon what others say without checking out the competition yourself? Yikes, that's scary.

    Do yourself a favor, go and drive the other cars, I trust that you'll then understand what I'm talking about. FWIW, I'm not the only one who's commented about the poor seating arrangements in the CTS.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    I wouldn't waste my finger power to trash the CTS. I will use my buying power to buy the best again. Driving is believing.

    AFAIC, NO CIGAR for GM on CTS. Nice trucks, however. Forgot long ago how to build satisfaction, IMHO.

    Regards,
    OW
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    Professional journalists make their money and enjoy a fun lifestyle expressly because they bend over for car companies. In the end, they moderate their opinions so they get invited to (and flown to) the next press junket in Malta or Hawaii or Geneva.

    I don't believe it when they say that a BMW is good or a Caddy is fun because their opinion is untrustworthy. The only opinion that should count when buying a car: your own. Nobody from Edmunds is going to buy the car for you, so while Karl Bauer may like the CTS, unless he's paying for my car, I'd don't give a hoot how he views the CTS because he has a vested interest in not offending Caddy.
  • nwalbertnwalbert Member Posts: 49
    Very well said, and quite accurate.

    I have to agree with the majority of people who have actually driven the vehicle, the new CTS does not compare favorably to any of the other vehicles mentioned in this discussion.

    To each their own however, if we all wanted the exact same thing out of a vehicle, they would not manufacture all these different choices.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Sometimes I really wonder what planet peolpe here are on.

    Look - the CTS isn't a Towncar in the rear. It's a rear seat meant for smallish people or as a temporary thing. GM's philosophy is that if you need permanent use of a back seat for large adults, go buy a DTS or some SUV. I have to agree with this. The back seat isn't an issue to me.

    I am 5'7" and I found it to be fine. Not a Maybach, but not bad - and a lot better than trying to cram in the back seat of, say, a C class.

    The handling is softer than a 3. Yeah, so what. It's NOT a small car. It's marketed towards U.S. roads, which means construction areas, expansion joints, potholes, and the like in most urban areas. I just visited relatives in Chicago - wow the roads out there were a joke. I can SO see why a big floaty Buick is popular there. Their roads are impossible bumpy and poor. A 3 series would be too agressive.

    IMO, GM does a fine act of trying to better the E class(which appears to be one of the cars they tried to beat/compete against).

    For the price, without all of the useless bling and sunroof, it's a very nice car that can be had the next time GM runs some incentives, for about $33-34K.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I don't think anybody ever tried to compare the CTS to a Towncar, however, I did compare the rear seating to a Honda Civic, and the Civic is much more comfortable.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    If you think roads in Chicago were a joke you should come check out LA. Boy, and I thought Atlanta was bad...

    However, I swear there are more 3-series than Buick in the metro LA area.
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    Sometimes I really wonder what planet peolpe here are on.

    I'm not sure what planet you are on with the rest of your post:

    It's a rear seat meant for smallish people or as a temporary thing.

    That describes my 911. If that describes a 4 door sedan intended to compete with the 3 series, TL, etc., lots of luck.

    The handling is softer than a 3. Yeah, so what. It's NOT a small car. It's marketed towards U.S. roads, which means construction areas, expansion joints, potholes, and the like in most urban areas. I just visited relatives in Chicago - wow the roads out there were a joke. I can SO see why a big floaty Buick is popular there.Their roads are impossible bumpy and poor. A 3 series would be too agressive.

    It's "NOT a small car"? But, it doesn't have a "permanant" back seat. Great, so we have another overweight, dysfunctional, soft riding offering from GM. I guess they are consistent, if nothing else.

    A particularly sad commentary that you and others that buy GM's think you need a "floaty" Buick-like ride to deal with U.S. roads. Perhaps that's the best GM engineers can muster, but there are plenty of cars out there that give you tight handling and good driving dynamics without loosening your fillings. Like the 3-series or my TL 6-speed. Even my 911, with its adjustable suspension and 19" wheels is fine around DC (not just my opinion, but my wife's and 2 daughters that fit in the back) A 3-series too "agressive"? Pitiful comment - and I don't mean about the car.

    IMO, GM does a fine act of trying to better the E class(which appears to be one of the cars they tried to beat/compete against).

    Are you nuts? Return to Earth. The CTS isn't in the same solar system as the E-class. In case you haven't noticed, the E class has a real back seat good for 2 full size adults or 3 kids. It has very good handling (i.e. too "agressive"). It's a real luxury sedan, NOT an entry level luxury performance sedan.

    Many/most here seem to think the CTS pulls up the rear of the ELLPS cars listed above. Some don't even think it competes, period. So nice try, but comparing a CTS to an E class (or 5 series) is like me coming in last in my weekend golfing foursome, and then telling my wife I'm ready to sign up for the Tour and take on Tiger Woods.

    It appears that you are the pilot of the intersteller ship here.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Wow. There's just no way to make people here happy. I guess it's expected, this being an online forum. Gripe forever about the old model and then the new one... gosh, it's Gripe some more about minor things.

    Doesn't have bluetooth? Let's bring it in an get the demons exorcised.

    The sunshade isn't opaque enough? The fact that it's exactly like half a dozen other makers panoramic sunroofs is immaterial. Let's bring it in and try it as a heretic. (btw - buy a Mercedes and there IS no shade at all - just acres of glass. You want that, roll the shade all the way open!)

    The suspension isn't better than a car costing $10-15K more? Time to burn it at the stake, because it's a lost cause.

    I get the distinct feeling that nothing would satisfy you short of it being a 3 series. Oh wait, if it was a clone of the 3 series, you'd probably deride it for being a copycat. It's like having an interactive version of a Motor Trend or Consumer Reports article. GM=bad, Imports=good.

    ***
    I've driven it. Also the E class. I'll tell you, the bling in the newer plasti-Cedes is paper thin, just like the rest. The reliability is a joke, and it drives very poorly. Honestly I'd rather own a Lucerne CXS or a Lexus GS than a new E. The new 3? A nice car I guess, but it weighs the same as my father's 1997 Park Ave Ultra. Serious mind-boggling bloat. And a price-tag to buy(not to mention repairs if you're stupid enough to NOT lease) that makes your accountant want to sign you up for therapy. After they hit you upside your head.

    My point is that none of these cars are perfect by a long shot. But it's clear to me that GM is trying to do what Hyundai did a decade ago and move towards a new goal/market segment. Cadillac announcing that they will re-do their entire line with the CTS as the 2nd out of four offerings is exactly right, IMO. The CTS will occupy that midsize luxury/sporty segment quite nicely. And every maker has a different idea of what that segment is. For $35K, you can't make an S Class, after all. Compromises have to be made.

    About the rear seats...

    The rear seats that are a bit too upright(the problem appears to only happen on the split/fold seats - too far forward/not deep enough cushions), so it feels tighter. Leg and arm space is far better than the 3 series(though it's not the lazy-boy reclining effect you get in the Lexus models now), even though it doesn't FEEL like it due to the geometry.

    But there is a trick as well(of sorts). GM's seats get seriously soft and mushy over time. 4-5 years later, the rear seats will have softened more than enough to make the rear seat gain back that 2 inches of room. I think they probably designed them for once to take that into account and people aren't used to it.

    Oh, you'll note that the trunk is MUCH larger than a typical small car? Right - that's where a couple of inches on the interior went. But if the trunk was 3 series sized, you'd of course jump all over it.

    It amazes me that people are so auto reviewer jaded today that well, if the seats aren't like a sofa, well, it's a cramped disaster - toss the ashes down a mineshaft, because it's unacceptable. There seems to be ZERO tolerange for anything inbetween here. Either it's perfect or it's worthless.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "The new 3? A nice car I guess, but it weighs the same as my father's 1997 Park Ave Ultra. Serious mind-boggling bloat."

    I guess the CTS is *more* than serious mind-boggling bloat then. Who the heck cares what a car weighed in 1997? Maybe you'd rather be driving the Ultra than the CTS.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "The rear seats that are a bit too upright(the problem appears to only happen on the split/fold seats - too far forward/not deep enough cushions), so it feels tighter. Leg and arm space is far better than the 3 series(though it's not the lazy-boy reclining effect you get in the Lexus models now), even though it doesn't FEEL like it due to the geometry.

    But there is a trick as well(of sorts). GM's seats get seriously soft and mushy over time. 4-5 years later, the rear seats will have softened more than enough to make the rear seat gain back that 2 inches of room. I think they probably designed them for once to take that into account and people aren't used to it."


    You can't possibly be serious. Rockylee would be proud of a statement like that. :P
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    So now you are going from comparing a CTS to an E-class to being apologetic for and/or apathetic towards its shortcomings?

    I get the distinct feeling that nothing would satisfy you short of it being a 3 series.

    I drive a TL 6-speed. Never owned a BMW. But the CTS isn't anywhere near the value, quality and functionality of the TL and boatloads behind the 3-series in driving dynamics and performance. There are a lot of good choices in the ELLPS segment. I just don't count the CTS as one. It looks like I'm not alone.

    The suspension isn't better than a car costing $10-15K more?

    The suspension isn't as good as a plenty of cars costing less, my aforementioned TL 6-speed being one of them.

    But there is a trick as well(of sorts). GM's seats get seriously soft and mushy over time. 4-5 years later, the rear seats will have softened more than enough to make the rear seat gain back that 2 inches of room. I think they probably designed them for once to take that into account and people aren't used to it.

    You wrote that? Sober? And are questioning what planet others are on? Let me get this right, buy a CTS, drive the next 50,000 miles carrying around 100 lb sacks of potatoes in your back seat and maybe, after about 4-5 years, they get "seriously soft and mushy" and stretch 2 inches making them comfortable for an adult human (assuming they, unlike me, actually like "seriously soft and mushy"). I think, perhpas, you are full of potatoes. But I'll still thank you for perhaps the funniest idea I've ever read in these forums.
  • vic10vic10 Member Posts: 188
    allmet33 on the Mainstream sedan page, where if you don't conform to HIS idea of the right sedan your a dumfah? Personally I'm glad the CTS doesn't ride or feel or look (or is priced ) like a BMW or MB or Lexus or Infinity. If I wanted all cars to be alike I'd wish we were all back in the early days where you could have any car and any color as long as it were a Model T and in black. And let's grow up. Attacking someone because he doesn't like a car that rides like a Formula 1, or because he likes a little chrome bling, or...whatever is really inappropriate for what this forum is suppose to be for.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    vic10, I can't agree with you more.

    I think the new CTS is a good effort from Caddy and it'll be rewarded for that. I am just glad there are so many choices out there in this segment. If every car drives and rides like a 3-series we might as well just get the 3-series and call it a day.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Unfortunately this particular discussion has, for years, exhibited the least amount of decorum of any that I frequent (I've even boycotted it for months on end as a result). Some folks are determined to convince the world that GM makes the best ELLPS in the world, other folks are just as determined that distinction should fall to Lexus or Infiniti or Audi or Mercedes-Benz. Needless to say, there are also many who hold with BMW.

    The above in and of itself isn't the problem. If you ever decide to take the time to review all ten thousand posts you'll see a common theme.

    1) A new car (or new generation of an existing model) is announced and often heralded (by the manufacturer, the press and/or the members of the TownHall) as being the ultimate BMW killer (an attribute ascribed in turn to the two generations each of the Infiniti G, the Lexus IS and of course the Cadillac CTS).
    2) The BMW folks say "Uhhh, sorry, try again."
    3) Things degrade from there.

    My personal belief is that if folks would simply lose their personal biases (Who me? Biased?) and discuss the attributes of the various ELLPSs that are important to them and why they prefer one car over another (after having driven them of course), all would be well. Unfortunately many folks simply look at a spec sheet and proclaim their favorites without ever even seeing the car in the flesh. Not to pick on rockylee (he hasn't posted here in quite some time), but well over a year ago he was proudly proclaiming that all other makers of ELLPSs should in essence pack up their cars and go home because the Gen 2 CTS was going to take over the world and destroy the sales of all of the other manufacturers.

    There is only one thing I can guarantee about rhetoric like that; it will start a cat fight that will spiral down, completely out of control. Then Pat will step in, shut this discussion down for a week or two to let the combatants cool down, and then it will gradually start all over again. Annoying, but there it is.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,687
    then it will gradually start all over again
    It may just come with the territory. I imagine ELLPS attract some of the more opinionated types, just naturally. We're not looking for a people/kid/cargo hauler, not a money/gas saver, we're looking for the best performing car in the category, just don't quite agree on which one it is ;)
  • scottm123scottm123 Member Posts: 1,501
    And with so many variables... there is no one answer.
    I bought an 07 G35.

    Is it the best? probably not...but it was the best for me.

    It's hard to say which is best, if you factor all the variables, being size, ride, handling, power, etc.

    But reading this particular thread and every one's opinion... this is good stuff! :P
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    Sometimes, I wish I could be a fly on the wall and watch the back and forth banter here from the sidelines.

    Oh wait, that's what I've been doing. :blush:

    Seriously though, I haven't seen the CTS in person yet, let alone driven it, but I wil say that I applaud them for being different. The car doesn't appeal to me for a number of reasons (size, weight, bling factor), but I respect that it doesn't try to beat BMW at their own game. I believe that it most certainly competes with BMW and Infiniti, and that it most certainly belongs in this discussion.

    GM has gone in another direction to appeal to who they think is shopping this segment, and frankly, I think they're on to something.

    While the Europeans and Japanese are grudgingly making their entry-lux sedans more luxurious and upscale for North America - at the expense of sporty performance - Cadillac just says "to hell with it" and gives North America what we refuse to admit we really want.

    Like it or not, Americans have been are speaking with their wallets, and for the last few years, we have been saying we want $300+ hp, chrome, wood, bluetooth, and auto parallel-parking leviathans.

    If BMW, Audi, Acura, Infinity, or Cadillac ever build and market a lux-performance sport sedan in North America that weighs 3000 lbs, I'll eat a bug.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    I think the bugs are safe for now...

    The upcoming 135i will weigh around 3300+ lbs, let along the 3-series, A4, TL, G35 and CTS.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Good points, but here is a good snip-it that hits home for the CTS in my view:

    (March 2007)

    Since The General has been unable to build small cars profitably since, um, ever, the company also knew that the Cadillac brand represented a mission-critical large passenger car profit center. So GM dedicated their new high-end Sigma rear wheel-drive platform exclusively to a line of premium sedans (CTS, STS) and a crossover (SRX). With lots of bragging about Nürburgring chassis fettling, the BMW 3-Series fighter CTS was the first out of the box.

    The press gave the CTS rave reviews. After a sluggish start, sales peaked in 2005 at 61k units. Sales in ’06 are off 11 percent. Year-to-date (YTD) ’07 they’re down 27 percent. Anticipation of the redesigned ’08 CTS is keeping some intenders’ powder dry, but it’s clear the model still hasn’t found its happy place.


    I really do not think this model will prevail in the market but we will see. I particularly do not like the styling and judging from the age demographics that the Top GM brand has claimed over the years, IMO, sales will continue to slide to the competition.

    In other words, does ANYONE really think this model will devlop into a top sales leader in this category?? I can't help thinking: Catera...

    image

    Regards,
    OW
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,499
    Yup.

    I tolerated Rocky's s(tuff) for the entire time it was presented, awaiting reviews of the actual car. Well, here we are and where's Rocky? I'm tempted to waltz over to the boards where he still posts & ask him to please come back and defend his rhetoric.

    I think it's interesting to support the vehicle of your choice with (wait for it). . .data, or failing that, test-drive impressions from someone who has actually driven the vehicles involved.

    The posters I've found most interesting/useful over the past several years have shown an evenhanded approach. Sevenfeet is my CTS guru, you're the BMW guy (among others) and Scott's the G person; there are others who speak from experience regarding the other Infinitis, Merc & the rest.

    Shills need not apply.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Okay, I went to the dealer again this morning. I looked at a CTS with the performance package and nothing else. I sat in it for 10 minutes and carefully thought things out.

    1:The sunroof DOES take up three inches of headroom in the front and two in the rear. Without it, it's a very nice car. Feels very spacious, yet narrow. The exact same feeling Volvo had a decade ago in its 850. Very nice, actually - a large 2+2 seating arrangement. Halfway between the 3 and 5, which seems to be a good place.

    2:The seats. They were the non-fold down type. I sat in it and thought for a while. I realized that the car was perfect for someone in less than 5'10". The cramped feeling was an illusion.

    The problem is the rear pillars. They curve inward an inch or two because of the rear seat side airbags(which most cars don't have, allowing for straight pillars). In addition, the rear door sils are very high, so you feel like you are sitting down in the rear. But it's an illusion. The car actually is identical to the other smaller cars in the rear. It fits two normal adults nicely enough. IMO, Cadillac should have made the door sils 2 inches lower to solve this, but it's probably govt crash regulations that are feeding this tall door/small window insanity.
Sign In or Register to comment.