2008 Cadillac CTS

displacedtexan · February 2007

I agree completely with ral1960. Whenever I read a test in C&D, Automobile and the rest I always have to factor in the overwhelming emphasis which is placed on speed/handling, acceleration and responsivness, compared to style, comfort, ergonomics AS WELL AS, performance.

I'll second that. The car mags are just one of many pieces of information I use when evaluating a car. Any discussion of style I ignore as irrelevant, since only I know what I find attractive.

1487 · February 2007

you are correct, we cant tell anything about the car until it's tested. Let's see, the old car needed more power and a better interior. The new car has more power, a better transmission and a better interior. The old car's weaknesses were addressed but you are going to tell us we cant make any judgement about the car without driving it. I find it interesting that I never hear these qualifiers when an import model is launched at an autoshow.

But who knows, perhaps in real life the car will be slow, ugly and handle like a Camry. Let us know after you drive it.

1487 · February 2007

I beg to differ with respect to your notion that we've been down this road before. Most recent GM products (or domestic in general) that have looked good on paper have been good on paper. That would apply to the 300C, CTS-V, GM pickups/SUVs, Aura, Fusion, C6, etc. Vehicles that seem "OK" from the start generally are seen as merely OK once they are tested. That would apply to cars like the Impala, Lucerne, Lacrosse, 500, etc. The CTS looks good and it will be good. This idea that GM hasnt put out anything that actually performs up to expectations is nonsense. While the CTS may be one of the best GM cars ever, its not the first competent model they have ever made.

dhamilton · February 2007

if you want to take GM's word as gospel then be my guest.

One foot on a banana peel. and the other one on another planet is where a lot of people live. I'm sure your neighbors will be real nice.

Like I said, I'll make my own decision.

I wouldn't listen to consumer reports either if that makes you sleep any better.

jimbres · February 2007

True enough. But wouldn't you agree that really good cars are more than the sum of their specs & press releases? Sure, car X may look sensational on paper, & you go down to your local X dealer with checkbook in hand prepared to fall in love. But then you get behind the wheel & discover that you can't get comfortable or that when you do get comfortable, you can't see key gauges clearly. Or perhaps you pull out of the lot & find that the clutch pedal is too heavy or that it engages too abruptly. Or something else happens to unpleasantly surprise you, & you realize that as impressive as this car is, you simply can't live with it. It just doesn't work for you.

I'm sure you've had this experience.

The specs will tell you only so much. In the end, it comes down to the drive.

markcincinnati · February 2007

For effect: "If Consumer's Reports likes the new CTS, it will be the kiss of death for the car."

I said "for effect," and I do mean it as a distortion of reality, but reality of some sort nevertheless.

"What is the form and substance of quality?" he asked.

"Who is the arbiter of truth when it comes to style?"

Well, let's see, we can talk about 0 - 100kph and that is a factual measurement. We can talk about durability and perhaps we can measure that. Frequency of repair too is something that can be "counted."

When I read Automobile, C&D, Motor Trend and R&T (on this side of the Atlantic) and CAR from the other side, and I sniff a common theme (beyond the measurable), I do sit up and take notice.

This is exactly why after 27 Audis in a row, I actually put my money down (as in deposit) on a new Infiniti M35X -- for I felt it was, at that moment in time, a better value (even though I thought if price was not considered, the Audi was my favorite.) The badge folks that I know thought if it didn't have the blue and white prop or the inter linking rings it was a "poser."

Maybe so.

This new Cadillac CTS is probably the first car (that I have only read about and seen pictures of) that has really gotten my attention and has really got me wondering and thinking, even, "why not a Cadillac?"

Yes the real tests, much in the same fashion as they rolled out when the other car that ALMOST got me this excited -- the 300C -- roll out, will be VERY influential.

If the CTS isn't as quick by a tick or two to 100kph or takes a foot longer to stop or cannot corner without spilling a latte, that will be duly noted and if the CTS ONLY falls short "at the limit" these stats may well be ignored.

Here is something though: it is, or can be, germane to your choice and your long-term satisfaction how it performs at "the limit" even if you will never take it there.

Why?

The characteristics that "seem" to surface at the limit (that is they are somewhat masked at modest speed) are still there even at 8/10ths.

If the car handles better "under duress" so to speak, this will translate to its handling when it is NOT being pressed to the limits of adhesion and sanity.

I have come to this conclusion after taking the Audi Driving School (ON ICE) four times and the BMW driving school (ON CONCRETE) once. Both driving schools do EXACTLY the same exercises. The outcomes are similar.

Audi does theirs on a 1.5 mile sheet of ice in Austria in AWD cars with four studded winter tires. BMW does theirs on a concrete surface in North Carolina in AWD cars with four all season tires (from time to time flooding the concrete which does, naturally, somewhat imitate ice.)

Everything the cars do on dry pavement and every action and reaction, every input and response is replicated on ice -- but at 30 or 40 kph whereas it takes up to 100kph to get the same reaction on even wet concrete.

Hence: we should not entirely discount certain performance parameters because some editor from C&D took the car to the limit, etc.

I may never know if my Audi A6 (were it not goverend to 131 mph) can go above 120 (the fastest I have ever gotten it to.) I do take some comfort in knowing it is a capable car in terms of braking and cornering, etc "at the limit."

Beyond certain performance metrics, I agree, the car editors have only limited influence (acceleration is one of them -- once the 0-100kph time gets to a 6 second+ number, I see little value in another $10,000 worth of HP and torque to get to a 5 second time, etc.)

The folks testing and bloviating about the new CTS will have, right or wrong, an important impact on the success of this new Cadillac.

I remain, possibly wrong, yet steadfast.

:confuse:

bruceomega · February 2007

I never thought I would pay attention to a domestic car again after trading in my Ford SHO on an Accord, and subsequently moving on to a succession of two BMW 330Xi's. But I have to admit the pictures of the new CTS on the web and in the car mags have gotten my attention. The 2008 CTS is striking.

There are a couple of other aspects that I find appealing. One is I think you can get AWD with the more powerful engine, unlike the IS350, and another is they offer a 6 speed rather than 5 speed automatic unlike either the G35x or M35x.

I have been toying with the idea of trading in my 2006 330Xi for the upcoming 535Xi. I'm wondering if the 2008 CTS will turn out to be a viable alternative, when price is factored in, to the 535Xi?

Bruce

ral1960 · February 2007

No offense, but 27 Audis sounds a little odd. You obviously like the brand, but not enough to keep one long. Or are you leasing several at a time?

Funny that the flashy new CTS appeals to you. Audis are stylish, but I wouldn't call them flashy (but the new monster grille look changes that a bit).

markcincinnati · February 2007

These, now 28, Audis were, in my garage and yes, often two at a time (one for my wife and one for me.) Most of the time the period between them was a couple dozen months.

I started this affair with Audis in 1976 when the company I was working for at the time gave me the use of a Silver Fox, then when promotion time came along, gave me my own Audi 5000.

Until 2005, when my wife broke ranks and went with a BMW X3, after three Audi TT's in a row and a succession of other Audis before that, we were on our way to 30.

This current Audi, number 28, may well be my last -- especially with such cars as the CTS coming from AMERICA!

(No, I wouldn't get it just because it is American, but if it fills the bill, that is a plus.)

markcincinnati · February 2007

. . .of the PDF that is on the CTS Micro Site (sort of) pertaining to the new features (AWD and 6speed transmissions) and here is what seems to be almost the only conclusions one can draw:

AWD will ONLY come with 6 speed automatic (probably not a big sales leader, as I am a "screaming voice in the wilderness.")

AWD will APPARENTLY only be offered with the 258HP version of the engine.

Who, in the wide wide world of sports thinks this is a good go-to-market strategy? I can understand both the technical and market reasons for not having the CTS-V be offered in AWD (despite the Audi S4 and RS4, etc.) But, this is the opportunity for Cadillac to offer a clearly RWD biased AWD sport luxury car with a marketing magic HP number of 300.

Now, tell me there will be no sport wheel and suspension package on the AWD version and I am (or will be if this is true) officially soured.

"And the pursuit?"

1487 · February 2007

Its not about GM gospel at all. Perhaps you should read some of the reactions of the automotive press. Almost everyong who has seen the car in person has been impressed. This includes Edmunds, C&D, MT, etc. All GM does is release pics and specs. Unless you feel that the specs are untrue or the pics arent representative of the final product than I dont know what spin you are talking about. Saying a car has 300hp, 6 speed transmissions and great features is not spin or hype or anything. GM told us what the car will bring to the table and if you think it's inadequate that is your choice. Most of us believe the car is bringing quite a bit to the table.

1487 · February 2007

since the STS has AWD with V6 and V8 powertrains I dont see why the CTS couldnt offer it with both V6 engines. This isnt unprecedented though. AWD is available on the 535 but not 545. Same applies to M35 and M45 as well as the S80 which offers AWD on the V8 only.

1487 · February 2007

first of all I couldnt find any PDF on the CTS microsite. I did however go to media.gm.com to read the press releases again and the specs specify that AWD will be available with the 300hp V6. The 2.8L engine will not get AWD but that wont be sold here anyway. The stick will not be available with AWD however so you were right about that. It mentions nothing about the sport suspension package not being available with AWD so I assume the two can be combined. You automatically get 18" wheels and bigger brakes with the 300hp engine.

markcincinnati · February 2007

Thank you and AMEN! :shades:

You, in some small way, made my day (at least on this subject, anyway!)

bruceomega · February 2007

1487, thanks for the reference to media.gm.com.

I took some specifications off of that, and specs from the BMW web site for the 07 530Xi sedan with AT, and tabluated a quick size comparison below.

For each spec, I've listed the 530Xi first and the 08 CTS(AWD) second:

Length 191.1 191.6
Wheelbase 113.7 113.4
Height 57.8 58.0
Width 72.7 72.5
Front Track 61.3 61.8
Rear Track 62.3 62.0
Weight 3671 4101
Weight Distribution 52/48 52/48
Front Headroom 37.7 38.8
Rear Headroom 37.9 37.2
Front Legroom 41.5 42.4
Rear Legroom 36.0 35.9
Front Shoulderroom 57.3 56.7
Rear Shoulderroom 57.2 57.4
Cargo Capacity 18.4 13.6

Its uncanny how close they are. The two biggest differences I noted were weight and cargo capacity.

Thanks
Bruce

biker4 · February 2007

I don't know where you got that trunk measurement for the 530xi - it's 14 cu ft. The weight diff is due to lots of light metal use. That's a big reason for the big price diff.

I wouldn't believe any documentation of configuration availability till they start coming off the assembly line. And if there's enough demand they'll offer a missing configuration in subsequent MYs.

pearl · February 2007

1487: you are ridiculously defensive. You try to find criticism of GM (and more specfically Cadillac) products even when none is offered. Look, we have not gotten any data from car mags or any other independent observers on what the new CTS will be like to drive, how reliable it will be, whether or not the seats are comfortable on long drives, or any of a thousand other things that make up car ownership. We heard lots of kudos about the model change in the Acura RL a few years ago, but once people started driving it, it did not quite live up to expectations - a good car, but not up to the pre-launch hype. Same for the new Infiniti G, the Pontiac GTO re-do and others. None were bad, but not quite up to all the press before hand. As I and many others have said repeatedly here, the new CTS looks good on paper and we are hoping for its success - BUT we don't know YET just how well it will live up to the current hoopla. This should not be hard to understand.

plekto · February 2007

The CTS is clearly an attempt to make a 5 series for 3/4 the price. You have to get GM credit for apparently getting it right this time.

But a 3 series it isn't. GM needs to introdice the BTS, even if it sells 100 cars a year, in order to force the CTS into the midsize/non-entry-levle range where it belongs.

ie - it's a 5 series competitor priced like a A4/3 series, and unfortunately, most magazines fail to se tha tthey are taking a page from Hyundai and undercutting the midsize luxury segment with a silly low priced offering.

rockylee · February 2007

I agree a RWD BLS about the size of a BMW 1-3 series would be a nice entry. It does need RWD.

Rocky

biker4 · February 2007

And then market the STS to......

markcincinnati · February 2007

A couple of years ago, when I first got Tivo and turned on the SPEED channel on DirecTV, I saw a "thumbs up" if you want to record a SPEED program about the new Chrysler 300.

You may remember this -- you may also have received Road & Track's "magazine within a magazine" -- the entire mini magazine was an "advertorial" all about the 300.

The SPEED program raved about the 300. The advertorial, of course, likewise. The SPEED program took the 300 hemi out on a race track -- even with a somewhat famous race-car driver (retired, apparently) going one on one with the cheeky host of SPEED's program.

"The 300C is better compared with a BMW 740 than anything else to come out of Detroit," the host gushed. "The fit and finish is what you would expect from an Audi, jewel like gauges and switchgear," and on and on and on he preened.

I like the 300C, I like the evolution of the product. I wouldn't mind having one.

I have driven the 300 and the STS. I find them reasonable cars to consider simultaneously. Had I somehow been in proximity to some posters here on e.com, I think they would've "egg'd" me or worse when I suggested the STS and 300C were competitors, twin sons of different mothers, etc.

The top o' the line STS (not the V) does crank up the L in LPS over the 300C (somewhat) -- and the STS at full tilt MSRP can be, in some instances, $20,000 more than a 300C.

For my money, the STS "has no clothes" if it is compared directly and ONLY to the 300C. Yet, even suggesting parity between these two autos is, I know, both unpopular and likely to be returned with a hail of "are you kiddings?"

I participate heavily in the LPS forum, I read (too many) ALL of the US Auto Magazines of "note" and some of a lesser god. I read at least one European magazine, too.

I cry uncle, the 300C is an STS at 75% of the price. Well, not really, not yet anyway.

The CTS -- for my money -- would be, of course, tested against the 5 series the A6 and by that logic, even the STS -- but it would be priced like an A4 or a 335, etc.

What we say and think here and how we vote with our dollars is not of "no consequence," however, the new CTS is unlikely to be hailed "by those who get paid to do this for a living" as a big gun against the LPS crowd. Tests of the CTS up against the ES300, BMW 3, Infiniti G and others of that ilk will, I predict, dominate.

The taste makers will classify the cars, overall -- probably despite popularity.

I, for one, hope this CTS is everything the press release says it is. I for one, will consider it against my current "crop" of choices -- both the A4 and A6, the 3 and the 5, perhaps the M35 from Inifinit, and, of course the STS. Moreso because I am looking a bit more at the value proposition than I have previously. But I will be 56 when I make that choice. If you are 36, or 46, you may want to go for the MAXIMUM, rather than the OPTIMUM.

The new CTS may, this time around, become an optimum car -- I find it hard to believe this one generational move will compel the paid pundits to disavow all the other incumbents.

Here is a test, a rhetorical and theoretical test. If the CTS is "5" at 3/4ths the price, well would someone actually pay 4/4ths? And, would enough someones do this to be meaningful?

Me? Well, I just might be looking for a "bargain basement" car that is "close enough for jazz" in features, content and performance to a 5-er.

I doubt I will conclude it is "the same as," however.

Hmm, if 50 is the new 30, does that mean 55 is the new 35? Well, hell, maybe I should throw all the cards over and just go for the real thing.

Naaaaaaa. Wouldn't be prudent. :surprise:

bruceomega · February 2007

biker4.

On the BMW web page for the 530Xi, it doesn't list some items in the technical data section. So I went to the comparison to another make section, and when I did that I got the cargo capacity, leg room, and I believe head room. BMW lists the cargo capacity as 18.4 cubic feet for the 530Xi. It shows, for example, the cargo capacity of a Lexus GS-300 as 12.7 cf.

Thanks
Bruce

plekto · February 2007

I should have said 95% of a 5 series. For 2/3-3/4 of the price.

The thing that gets me is that most magazines see "entry-level" as small, tiny, and place it against the other tiny junk. But the CTS is Cadillac's second from the bottom offering in reality. It's clearly their 5 series.

We just don't get Cadillac's 3-series entry-level car over here. But it's sold in Europe.(though not very well, since they are a MITE bit more picky about small cars than we are over here).

It would be exactly like the problem Honda had with the Civic for many years. Of course it dominated the entry-level segment here. That's because it was their third from the bottom car in Japan. They finally brought the Fit over, which is a closer compotition to the Yaris and the rest. Their smallest car, the City, is a Smart FourTwo competitor - really silly small. You can expect it to come over in a few years as well, since the Smart will dominate its segment and Honda will not want to be left out.(actually it's a 3/4 size Fit and every bit as nice to drive from what I hear)

And the new Civic isn't quite as "special" anymore - not because it's different so much as it's now properly compared versus other midrange sedans in stead of the rock-bottom.

GM really needs to hammer this home with the auto magazines because the CTS will always get killed by the smaller and lighter 3 series, just like how a 3 series will always get smoked by a Lotus Elise(same price, roughly - so it's a fair comparison, no?)(sic for the impared - lol)

traumaone · February 2007

These were posted up on motorcycleaddicts.org. See what you think.

http://www.motorcycleaddicts.org/off-topic/1569-cadillac-parking.html

ral1960 · February 2007

I doubt it. It looks like the dark blue one has the standard 17" wheels, and the gray ones have 18" ones. I think the gray ones are the same prototypes in earlier spy shots. The rear view mirrors are different on different cars. A good catch, none the less. The aluminum cross member looks hand-made.

biker4 · February 2007

Funny that they got the GS numbers right but they got their own model's numbers wrong. There's no mid sized sedan with a trunk that big - I think the biggest trunk award goes to the Camry around 15 cf. Maybe they mixed it up with the specs of the 7 series which does have an 18 cf trunk.

Me? Well, I just might be looking for a "bargain basement" car that is "close enough for jazz" in features, content and performance to a 5-er.

+1 :shades:

1487 · February 2007

If you dont think the car is legit dont buy it. Thats the best I can tell you. BTW, test drives cannot predict reliability so if you are looking for edmunds or C&D to tell you if the CTS will be reliable you will be disappointed. I believe the current car gets at least an average reliability rating from CR.

I am not clear about what you dont know about the CTS that you hope C&D will clear up for you. At this point all we dont know is pricing (likely to be much cheaper than Germans) and performmance numbers. That will come once the car is tested. I dont see anything being said in a road test that would convince me this isnt an excellent sports sedan. Persoanally, the styling alone is enough to put it near the top of the class so even if it doesnt match the IS350 or 335 in every performance measure I would still take the CTS.

rockylee · February 2007

Persoanally, the styling alone is enough to put it near the top of the class so even if it doesnt match the IS350 or 335 in every performance measure I would still take the CTS.

Agree. It might not be as fast as the 2 you mentioned but will be close enough. Once you factor in Price, Gadgetlogy, Quality, Fit and Finish, Warranty, and the fact that it runs on regular gas if you choose to put regular in it then it's a no brainer isn't it 1487 ? I think the new 08' CTS sets the Benchmark for ELLPS

Rocky

bruceomega · February 2007

biker4,

You piqued my curiosity. I just went to the Infiniti web site and did a comparison there between an M35x and a 530Xi. In that comparison, it shows the 530Xi's cargo volume as 14.0 cf (and m35x as 14.9 cf).

Thanks
Bruce

biker4 · February 2007

Any site that shows the trunk of the 5 series being other than 14 cf is a typo (unless it's the wagon).

1487 · February 2007

Almost every RWD midsize sedan (5 series included) has a small trunk. I too was wondering where the 18 cu ft figure came from because I knew it was off. I dont know if any RWD luxury midsizer has more than 15 cu ft in the trunk.

sandiegan1 · February 2007

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2007/112_0703_cadillac_future_model- s

Did you guys see that Caddy is planning a Wagon and Coupe version? I'm pretty excited about the possibility of that, with limited fun wagon options here in the states.

markcincinnati · February 2007

I am tempted even at this early stage to give you a qualified "I agree."

Even if it is NOT THE ELLPS benchmark, it has to be a high water mark for Cadillac.

I am very interested if the price point stays at a number beginning with a $4 -- Cadillac made the STS, the one that I would've selected, impossible to configure at a number lower than one beginning with a $6, despite early on positioning statements indicating "nicely equipped" for -- bla bla bla.

So the current CTS is +$1200?, then we add $1800 for AWD? Yes? Does this mean that a high zoot CTS can be figured to cost about $3K more than a full on 2007 CTS and then add some amount for the 300HP on top of that (another how much?) to come in at $49,995? Or will a maxed out CTS actually be able to be $46,995 at MSRP?

Some seem to think these are too high.

I hope I am wrong.

It just seems the more I shop and google and figure and cypher -- the more it seems unlikely to be less than $50K by much.

No Bluetooth at outset?

Thank god I've got about 13 months to pull the trigger.

Be great to see a configurator come on line.

Cadillac emailed me and set build date starts in July.

:shades:

plekto · February 2007

COnsidering the base CTS came in at 29,995, the new one sans AWD will be what - $32K with the 3.6 engine? It's going to be easy to get the normal version for well under 35K after rebates.

That motortrend article is full of it, though. I'll eat everyone here's shoes if the wagon is the same size as an A3. Lol. It's the size of a midsize Volvo station wagon, for goodness sakes.

It's just NOT a small car. It's not a 3 series, it's not an A4(let alone an A3!) - it's just not the size of a Jetta or Civic! What it is is the size of an E-Class, almost to the inch.

***E-Class***
Length: 191 in. Width: 71.7 in.
Height: 58.4 in. Wheel Base: 112.4 in.
Curb Weight: 3860 lbs.
Front Head Room: 39.1 in. Front Hip Room: 57.2 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 56.4 in. Rear Head Room: 37.8 in.
Rear Shoulder Room: 56.1 in. Rear Hip Room: 57.2 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.9 in. Rear Leg Room: 35.6 in.
Luggage Capacity: 15.9 cu. ft. Maximum Cargo Capacity: 16 cu. ft.
Base Number of Cylinders: 6 Base Engine Size: 3 liters
Base Engine Type: V6 Horsepower: 208 hp
Max Horsepower: 3800 rpm Torque: 388 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 1600 rpm Drive Type: RWD
Turning Circle: 37.4 ft.

That's within tenths of an inch in fact, to the upcoming model.

Cadillac needs to bring the BTS over here - even if it's an utter toad. Seriously. To force the magazines to bump it up a notch into the midsize luxury sedan market if for no other reason.

ral1960 · February 2007

Before everyone jumps on Mark for overestimating the price, remember he won't even look at a car unless it has every option available on it.

The Pontiac G8 is supposed to have about 17.5 cu ft of trunk space, for those who want American RWD and more than a tiny trunk. Looks like Cadillac could have added a few inches to the CTS and STS to get them over 13.8.

plekto · February 2007

It has fold-down seats, though, for the bigger items, and a pretty wide opening for the trunk.. I think it'll be fine.

rockylee · February 2007

$46,995 at MSRP? Loaded out w/ AWD I would expect a MSRP give or take $500 bucks. Then it all on you to work them down. $3-4K off I wouldn't think would be unrealistic pal.

Before you buy come talk to me if you'd like. If your local dealers are to proud of them to sell them at a reasonable price. then we need to find you another dealership. We can't do any of this until final prices are released.

Rocky

markcincinnati · February 2007

STS's were "routinely" -$9,000 from MSRP then there were low low low money factor leases, inflated residuals and soon the MSRP of the STS and the TCO were down in Chevy land around here.

We all want a bargain basement Bimmer?

Maybe.

Many of the 2007 CTS's "on the lot" are already at $39K -- these have no nav systems and other than the optional extra cost paint and a sunroof, they seem pretty much equipped as most mfgr's would call "premium."

Yep, I'd order "Premium, Sport, Technology and Cold Weather Packages on my AWD 300HP version." The thing is, using BMW's as a "comparison" -- despite higher MSRP's, they often can be had at lease for prices that apparently take advantage of high residuals and more or less reasonable money factors. My wife's BMW at nearly $48K is $581/mo 36 months, 45K miles, $250 down.

The "comparably" priced cars from America (even Cadillac) often ([non-permissible content removed] for tat @ MSRP) are over $100 higher (and no free maintenance.)

Some people claim BMW is not a buyer's car, that the BMW leasing arm's sole purpose in life is to flood the market with Bimmers (75% of them are leased according to our dealer, #10 in the US.)

So where does that leave GM? Discountarama? 0% money factors/interest rates, artificially high residuals making early lease terminations virtually impossible?

One reason, besides a desire to "always" have a young vehicle, that BMW regularly is the sales leader in the LPS world, appears to be they often are the lower cost vehicles -- then I guess, you add badge appeal (for some.)

There are certainly folks HERE that would argue in favor of the CTS (and I do believe they are sincere.)

Yet, the comparisons to the E class and 5 series and I assume A6 class are continuing. Perhaps this comparison is to justify the acquisition of the CTS "as if to say."

I wonder, however, if "the collective we" shop for the new CTS and a BMW 5 series can be had (comparably equipped) for the same lease deal, how many people will still go for the 'merican car?

My A6 was $53,286 -- the lease is $640/mo 36, 45K $350 out the door, sec dep waived, bla bla bla. A Chrysler 300C for $39 months is more and requires a 10% of MSRP "cap cost reduction." Hmmm. The $53K German is "cheaper" than the $39K German/American. Why bother?

Sure sure, check out the "current offers" section and the 300 may come in less (but for 12,000 miles per year, for 42 months with no money down, etc.) The foreign car still seems more attractive.

Now, to those of you (few or many) who are not in favor of leasing for whatever reason, please consider if it is less per month to lease and the lease is made up of cost of money, residual over time and MSRP (and selling price) that the car that costs the least to lease is very likely the car that will cost the least to buy. 0% GM financing is nothing to be sneezed at, and it is a condiseration.

But my trusty old accountant still says, "buy that which appreciates, rent that which depreciates." So, with that, I wonder if the new BMW 5-er at thousands more MSRP won't be an easier sell than a Cadillac CTS if history repeats itself.

I would strongly consider a 5 for $599 month vs the CTS at a like lease. You may or may not concur.

The inherent goodness of the Cadillac needs, perhaps, some incentives. . .perhaps.

:surprise:

biker4 · February 2007

A good looking CTS wagon at a $10K discount would steal away lots of more profitable SRX sales.

allargon · February 2007

I might take you up on that, Rocky. One of the joys with domestics is that their are plenty of dealerships. We only have one Caddy dealer in Austin. However, I can drive any direction to find another dealer within 50-100 miles.

texases · February 2007

Remember, the big discounts on the current CTS are partly because of the coming 2008. My friend just got an '06 for $9000 off, but they weren't wanting to talk anything like that on an '07, and I bet it'll be a while before '08s see major discounting, what with all the demand this forum's creating!

Also - didn't I read somewhere the wagon would be export only?

1487 · February 2007

You are 100% correct about the discounting. I anticipate this car getting great reviews and I dont see dealers being willing to offer great deals for many months after launch.

The coupe and wagon have NOT been confirmed in any way, shape or form. If they happen they may not both be sold here since wagons arent all that popular in the states.

plekto · February 2007

$640 a month? You could purchase a CTS for that much.

2007 CTS with the 3.6 engine.
Options:
Luxury Package
Split-Fold rear seat
6 Cd changer
Sunroof
$35,040 Via Cars Direct.

First off, NOT $40K. NOT EVEN CLOSE. All of the blather about these costing $45K+ and such - maybe for the V version, but not for the normal one.

Secondly, and most importantly, that's axactly $640 a month with 0 down at 0% financing(trust me - GM will offer 0% or 1.9% or something silly in a few months). Yes, that includes tax, license, and such here in California.

Why lease when you can buy with a year longer warranty, no mileage worries, and no fees/condition adjustment when you turn it in?

markcincinnati · February 2007

My point about $640/mo was for a car with an MSRP of $53,286.

I suspect if there is a $40K+ CTS for lease at $640/mo and an Audi A6, BMW 5 or Mercedes E is about the same bucks per month, folks would pause and give consideration to the German cars.

Why pay $640 per month for a sub $40K car when the same money gets you a $50K+ car?

On the subject of leasing, suffice it to say that it is not for everyone. O% financing is perhaps the best way to acquire a car -- but even then the purchase of an asset that gains value and the rental of an asset that loses value is not an absurd philosophy.

My point was that the CTS MAY need to be subvented to lure a potential buyer -- especially if the CTS is thousands less at MSRP but similarly priced at lease to a BMW 5 series, fer instance.

ral1960 · February 2007

It is a little counterintuitive that the high demand for a BMW would make it less expensive to lease.

plekto · February 2007

Why ppay for a 50K+ car what's massively overpriced when you can OWN a simmilar car for less - just without the snob factor?

markcincinnati · February 2007

. . .here is an explanation of why BMW's (often) are the lowest priced cars when leasing, at least.

Note: regardless of the source of the calculation called residual, the residual value of the car at X months in the future has a HUGE impact on the lease payment. Two other factors, of course, are influential and can be, likewise, "sub-vented." On that note, think of sub-venting as "financial support" for a lease (usually provided by the mfgr's leasing arm.)

BMW's have enjoyed high residuals for some time. Regardless of empirical economic evidence that may or may not actually exist, BMW's are "worth more" after 36 months than many (most?) cars available today. It may be true that the residual percentages are "artificial" or it simply may be the simple simple "Economics 101" supply and demand. A used BMW retains "something" that makes it very desirable (not to me, to the "market.")

Cadillacs, on the other hand, have not enjoyed as great a residual value after X months.

Many (most?) cars residual value literally plummets the moment it is sold to a customer. This is one of the reasons a new Chrysler 300 can be leased (although sub-venting changes this, too) for MORE than a car costing over $10,000 more at MSRP.

Some folks believe BMW USA is NOT in the business of selling cars -- that they are, rather, in the leasing business (75%+ of Bimmers being rented, NOT purchased.)

It is, very possible a $50K BMW will actually be less money to lease than a $40K Cadillac -- based on similar terms, etc.

If the residual is NOT a total sham, the buyer of said BMW and Cadillac will experience the exact same things at X months down the road as those who leased experience.

The purchased Cadillac will cost more at X months than the BMW, that is.

Of course, if the BMW lease is sub-vented as it pertains to residual, this makes leasing, not buying, even a more frugal financial choice.

Why?

If "someone else's money" is being used to allow you to acquire a $50K car for an amount that is the same as it would cost to lease a $40K car (and the $50K car is one that you actually would want) the $50K car is a lay down.

Likewise 0% interest is another form of sub-venting a purchase.

Likewise low low low "money factors" (the interest rate contained in a lease) will have yet another similar effect: the lease price per month will decrease.

High residual and low money factors have a huge impact upon the lease prices. It is sometimes thought that the leasing company called BMW Financial is both a marketing and sales tool helping BMW move thousands of cars per month, often placing them at the top of any category in which they are placed (ELLPS, LPS, etc.)

GM on the other hand has taken a discount approach due to the fact that even the most conservative estimates of residual have often proven too optimistic and, after all, how much lower than 0% interest can you go?

The new crop of American cars is, hopefully, turning the tide somewhat. Cadillac should enjoy higher residuals with the newest generation of the CTS. Problem is, it takes years for the new, true residual to become known.

After the initial launch and hoopla from the auto magazines (hopefully, anyway, there will be hoopla), Cadillac will enjoy a honeymoon period where the cars, however sold, will be sold close to MSRP. Newer models from the competition, time, boredom and other market factors will erode this position probably within 6 - 9 months of launch. Yet in that period of time the 36 month true residual will only be a forecast.

BMW can, somewhat, rest on its laurels (and I am using BMW as an example, not meaning, i.e., to exclude other Germans, Europeans or Japanese competition.) It can say after 24 months a new 5 series is able to command "X%" of MSRP, meanwhile Cadillac will have to settle for ".8X%" or sub-vent the heck out of the lease.

My wife enjoyed a $581 lease payment on a $48K BMW while the same could not be said at the time of the lease on a 2005.5 Audi A4 (due to residual.) The $44K A4 had an asking lease price (same terms as the BMW) of $644 per month.

Since the vehicles, were for her, interchangeable, she made an economic decision.

If the BMW 5 series is "within spittin' distance" financially of the new CTS, for instance, it matters not if one believes the 5 is "massively overpriced."

Why?

Because it costs less to use for 36 months than the "appropriately priced" Cadillac.

Many folks may cross shop the Cadillac with the BMW (3 and 5) and I am suggesting that many folks within that population may find the "massively overpriced" Bimmers lower cost per month from 24 - 36 months on a $0.00 down lease which includes maintenance.

The MSRP is almost irrelevant.

It is the "monthly check I have to write" that will have huge sway on the decision. Cadillac is -- without substantial sub-venting -- the knife in the gun fight.

Discountarama? Even more massive sub-venting? 0% interest rates? All of the above?

Probably, at least for the early years of the new CTS -- until its inherent goodness (if it indeed manifests itself) becomes an historical fact (check KBB 36 months from launch, i.e.)

With all due respect, I submit it is intuitive that the higher buck cars of a certain persuasion will almost always cost less than the lower buck cars of another certain persuasion.

American cars are on the hunt for higher residual values -- they just haven't yet cornered their prey. :shades:

taxesquire · February 2007

I appreciate your post, and I agree that higher residuals is a key factor in determining lease payments. I do not know enough to formally "disagree" with what you said - I just want to make a comment and hopefully you'll respond:

With 2 similar cars with similar MSRPs, the car with the highest residual will often have the lower lease payment; however, when comparing a BMW lease to a Cadillac lease, that may not be the case. BMWs are at the top in terms of MSRP, so even if a Cadillac will depreciate more, percentage-wise, what matters is the actual dollar difference between the purchase price and the residual.

You may have said it in your post and I missed it, but are you saying that BMWs higher residuals results in a smaller difference between purchase price and residual (i.e. purch price - residual) as compared to other cars? I think that's the key - not whether BMW depreciates at a lower rate.

markcincinnati · February 2007

"IF" the MSRP of the Cadillac is $40K and the BMW is $50K and the residual of the Cadillac is 40% and the BMW is 60%, the calculation could go this way:

Residual of Cadillac is $16,000.

Residual of BMW is $30,000.

Cost to use Cadillac is $24,000
Cost to use BMW is $20,000

If there are similar money factors, the mo pay on the BMW will be lower than the the mo pay on the Cadillac.

This is a gross oversimplification for purposes of responding and to hopefully not raise the ire of the host, for there are plenty of leasing threads here on e.com.

The "spirit" of the above is, however, accurate.

If the term happened to be 24 months and the money factor was 0% the Cadillac would lease for $1,000 per month and the BMW would lease for $833.

For some people the lure of the BMW at $833 per month would overpower the lure of the less expensive (at MSRP) Cadillac at $1,000 per month.

Would you pay $1,000 for a Cadillac when the BMW was $833?

If the residual on the BMW was lowered to 50%, the two cars would have very very similar lease payments. Same question, would you lease a Cadillac for $1,000 per month or a BMW for just slightly more (about $20 per month more in this example?)

I am not suggesting we all are economic buyers -- for there would surely be folks who would lease the Cadillac for $1,000 rather than a $10,000 more at MSRP BMW.

I'm just not one of them.

If both cars lease payments are very very close, I will opt for the $50K car over the $40K car (in this example, which is JUST an example, i.e.) :surprise:

slice4 · February 2007

Hi,
I am in grad school and am working on an assignment about cars. My group and I are conducting some research, and would love your input!
We have designed a survey to gather information. It is not a quick survey, but it will not take too long either

Please help us with our research!! :lemon:

Check out the survey at:
link title

Thanks!

2008 Cadillac CTS

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles