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

2008 Cadillac CTS

1111214161757

Comments

  • ral1960ral1960 Member Posts: 74
    I would buy the car I liked better, regardless of cost or prestige. At least, that's how I'm trying to rationalize spending well over $30k for a CTS, when a G8, Aura, or Malibu would meet my requirements (if not satisfy my passions) just as well for thousands less.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Buying the car, though, has a couple of nice features to it.

    1: Compare two BMW leases(6 years) for, say, $640 a month, to a single Cadillac purchase for 6 years. (say you pay a thousand more to up the GM warranty to 6 years as well)

    Btw, I get $625.69 a month - 2.9% for 72 months, plus $1000 for the extended warranty. No trade-in, no down, plus california tax and license, which is one of the highest(Edmunds.com)

    The difference is that the Cadillac at the end of 6 years is cash that you can sell it for - so that lowers the effective price of the car by 10K.

    You quoted $24K for the Cadillac and 20K for the BMW(3 years), but the Cadillac only costs *35-36K*. I get 20K versus 20K. But again, you get nothing at the end, while the Cadillac you can resell for cold, hard cash in three more years.

    ie - it costs you the same $20K for three years but six years only costs you $30K!. But, the cars need to be about 30% apart to make this happen(which is why a Hyundai can also be a better deal than a Civic in some cases)

    2:No mileage deductions of charges. Drive the Cadillac or other purchased car like you stole it or like it's your grandma's car. Your choice.

    3:No bills or problems when you turn it in. Sometimes luxury cars can be harsh and the bill can be ugly if it has a coupl of dents in it or more likely, the bumpers are less than pristene.

    4:GM really DOES offer 0-2.9% financing for long-term leases on these things. It's essentially like a lease at that point, but you own it at the end. :)

    5:You can always drive the car another 5-6 years for very little at that point. $1000 in repairs a year, which is considered excessively high by most people, is *TWO* payments a year on a BMW in effect. Put that way, it's nearly free. Pay for a month or two and the other 10-11 months are free.

    This is how you get wealthy, btw - you drive your cars and use your possessions until they fall apart or close to it. And considering my sister and I managed 18 years each out of our Buicks(my father was the first owner of both) - 10-12 years for a Cadillac is no problem at all.
  • ral1960ral1960 Member Posts: 74
    If everyone bought and held onto his car (and other stuff) like you suggest, the car business would all but die, and the whole economy collapse with it. Fortunately, few of us are that careful with our money.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I appreciate your point of view. I do not think, in any way, shape, manner, form or regard, that it is invalid or flawed.

    I do think it is, in this market, for this class of product, etc, a minority point of view. But, since I'm dredging up my accountant's advice, his comment is most people rent the place they live and buy the car they drive which is counter intuitive considering that "generally, typically, fundamentally" cars lose value (sometimes very) rapidly and houses gain value over time.

    I place a value on having new-er technology. At month 37, I am at a place where I owe nothing and have nothing. You are half way though a purchase and you are perhaps likely to very likely to owe more than your vehicle is worth.

    At month 37 you may need tires and other service items that will certainly cost high 3 figures and in some cases low 4 figures to the left of the decimal point.

    I can make a decision to re up for a more or less expensive car where EVERYTHING is new, and the latest safety, performance, economy, electronic and entertainment devices are mine for the choosing.

    At month 37 the buyer owes more than the car is worth, has four year old technology and safety and performance and entertainment, etc etc etc amenities, features, functions and style.

    Some folks place some value on "a change." Some don't.

    Some folks place some value on the updated, new and different features, functions and amenities (that can effect the driving pleasure, performance, economy and safety.) Some don't.

    Some people are willing to risk a breakdown which is typically more likely in years 4, 5, & 6 than in 1, 2 & 3.

    There are, that is, "opportunity costs" that are quantifiable and some are "qualifiable." They exist. Some people are content to live with the opportunity costs. Some aren't.

    The effect on the economy, noted, would be an interesting study -- for there certainly is "an arguement" that could suggest the cost of maintaining, fueling, repairing, insuring, etc, those "older cars" merely shifts money from new car purchases to maintaining older cars as "fit for road duty."

    I have no problem with either approach. Some of my friends have 5, 6 or more year old vehicles. None of them, however, likes NOT having a younger vehicle. Not one. One of them is so concerned about having a NOT YOUNG vehicle, he will only travel any distance by renting a car from enterprise for any weekend trips over X miles one way.

    It takes all kinds.

    If indeed the new car is $36,000 out the door and is offered at 0% interest for 72 months, the payment will be $500. At month 37, the amount owed will be $18,000 and the worth of the car, based in part on how quickly one needs to convert it to cash will be less than $18,000, and in some cases thousands less. Add the new set of tires for $500+ and at month 37, I have a car that would cost me $1,000 NEXT month were I to first re-tire it and then sell it outright and pay off the $17,500 I owed, from the $16,500 (or less) I would likely get if sold to a private individual.

    Me, I like an equal to or less than 3 MY old vehicle; I like both factory warranty and factory maintenance (a la Audi, BMW, etc.)

    I love the looks, features (on paper) and "ideal" of an American car such as the new CTS.

    I would not pay $1,000 per month (as an example and to repeat a gross oversimplification) for the CTS if the BMW 5 series were but $833 per month; and, were they identical in mo pay, the BMW would still get my vote unless it drove like a log wagon (or worse.)

    Most folks will, given an apples to apples payment and cars that are approximately able to be substituted for each other in at least 50% of the criteria for which one chooses an automobile, go for the more expensive MSRP vehicle.

    Many folks, were the BMW 535xi sold for $39K (and the CTS was the same MSRP) take the Bimmer. This changes, I'd wager, to "most" folks would take the 535xi over the CTS if the 535xi were $50K and the CTS $39K but had similar lease payments. I would assume that GM will probably adjust (i.e., subvent) the new CTS to prevent this.

    If they do, I'm a prospect.

    If they don't and a $10,000 more expensive car (regardless of its country of origin) can be had for the same monthly lease payment, it will be a tough sell for the Cadillac.

    I'm (in this circumstance) an economic buyer. The cars in this and the next class up are more similar than not. Price, then, can have a huge influence on an economic buyer.

    It blew my mind when my secretary bought a USED Saturn for $11,000 when she could have had a new Honda for less money per month on a lease. She had a 5 year finance vs a 39 month lease. Little warranty and used tires, battery, etc on the one car and new everything on the other.

    She could've had the Honda and, I'd bet, more peace of mind and a slightly lower payment.

    Don't meddle with your friends or co-workers finances is a lesson here. Once she made the buy, I loved the Saturn, as far as she knew.

    Anyway -- each POV has its merits.

    I did think it was worth suggesting you consider some of the merits of leasing from another viewpoint. I, too, appreciate knowing the merits from your perspective.

    No approach is perfect. Yours suits you, and vice-versa.

    Drive it like you live. :shades:
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    This is how you get wealthy, btw - you drive your cars and use your possessions until they fall apart or close to it.

    Well put. I couldn't agree more. Buy something you like, take care of it & use it up. Do that & you won't wind up telling your tale of woe on the Smart Shoppers' forum dedicated to the sad sacks who can't make the payments on cars that are worth less than what they owe.

    It may pain some folks to hear this, but cars are appliances. They're endearing, exhilarating & sometimes heart-breaking -- I have & love a BMW 330i -- but appliances nonetheless: tools for getting from here to there quickly & easily. Just as I won't get rid of my microwave oven until it stops working (mine is still going strong, although it dates back to the 2nd Reagan administration), so I won't get rid of an otherwise good car just because it's reached a certain age. Since the beginning of 1985 -- 22 years ago -- we've bought a total of 6 cars for 2 drivers.

    I like what little I've seen of the new CTS. If the driving experience lives up to its styling, it might replace my BMW -- but not until 2009 at the earliest.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    I place a value on having new-er technology. At month 37, I am at a place where I owe nothing and have nothing. You are half way though a purchase and you are perhaps likely to very likely to owe more than your vehicle is worth.

    At month 37 you may need tires and other service items that will certainly cost high 3 figures and in some cases low 4 figures to the left of the decimal point.


    You missed my point - I figured an extended waranty in there as well, to make it even - the Cadillac not costing me a dime(and it's 4/48 plus 5/100K on the drivetrain to begin with). A CS with the V6 in it after three wyars is worth almost exactly $16-18K, as well. Ie - it's close to breaking even, like the BMW lease.

    The magic, though, is what happens for the next three years. You start a new lease over and I pay mine off - constantly getting ahead of the game. After three more years, the car is still worth 10K and that's money I can put towards a new CTS or simmilar(or BMW) - and presto - I get a 40K car(figure inflation and such) for $30K. 5K less than my original car, in fact. You lease is still in the $600-700 range and my second car is in the 500 range.

    After 6 yeasrs, though, I can kep the car for $500-1000 a month, and honestly, most new luxury cars are fine as commuters for 12 years. Figure 6 more years with 5K extra maintainence.(stickshift CTS of course - not going to touch that automatic's repair bill, no way) Car is worth 4K at the end.

    I paid 36K+interest/etc(40K)plus 5-6K in repairs, or a whopping 46K for 12 years. Let's say $48K to make the math easy. That's 4K a year for 12 years.

    Leases would cost you 80K in 12 years(~7000 a year). Almost double. Your choice I guess, but the reality is your advisor is partially wrong - you should buy your house AND your cars. And use them for a decade or more between moves if you can.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    The warranty has nothing to do with having a new car at month 37. The warranty lowers the risk of cost at month 37, it does not imbue the three year old car with the new features, functions and performance/economy.

    I do place value on the having a new model every three years. It does not mean you should, of course, but it just means that there is value to me in keeping it new.

    This is not the forum for continuing this discussion. I am happy to keep on my current track and happy that you are satisfied with your choice.

    There are merits to both approaches.

    Enjoy your approach.

    I must say, I've enjoyed my current car so much, I do wonder if I will continue my current course of action.

    Yet, then there is the case of my in laws -- new Chrysler 300 Limited, 39 month lease $299.

    This is their first lease.

    They calculate this as a better deal for them than their last car, purchased, a 1997 Cadillac that they claim cost them an arm and a leg.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    If everyone bought and held onto his car (and other stuff) like you suggest, the car business would all but die, and the whole economy collapse with it.

    Seriously doubt that. the auto industry would change for sure but the e4conomy would still move on. Unless they are burning it in their back yards people are going to do something with their money.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • ral1960ral1960 Member Posts: 74
    I was using a little hyperbole, but it would be a very different economy if most people weren't buying new stuff all the time. Sort of like the Great Depression. Thankfully?, the auto industry is a smaller slice of our economy now.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    It would be a slightly different economy but nothing like the great depression. People will still have the money they would have to do something with it. Either spend it or ibvest it but they will use that money.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • cowbellcowbell Member Posts: 125
    "If everyone bought and held onto his car (and other stuff) like you suggest, the car business would all but die, and the whole economy collapse with it. "

    This is a very true statement. People wouldn't be burning their money in the backyard because people wouldn't have any. This is because no one would buy the products or services they are making.

    Modern economies are based on destruction. Did you ever see the movie, The 5th Element? There's a scene where someone breaks a glass on the floor, and the broken glass is immeadiately swept up by many little robots. And then speaking of the robots cleaning up the mess: "Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life"

    Imagine what our economy would be if cars and buildings and TVs and computers and clothes lasted forever.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    "IF" cars were like airplanes, i.e., kept "in service" updated and maintained (for the most part) "like new" and outfitted with new avionics, engines, seats, toilets and wires and stuff -- I suspect the economy would be just fine as wine, for there would be a shift from "bic" car purchases to maintenance and refurbishing. New cars would still be required due to other forms of destruction.

    I see no harm in keeping your car 10 years. The fact that the cars technology, features, functions, performance, economy, fun factor and economy changes is just something I hate to pass up.

    I see no harm in that approach either.

    Now, therefore, notwithstanding, the 5th Element quote is, in spirit, dead-on accurate. In spirit. Keeping everything until it is "used up, worn out, etc" is unlikely to happen, but if it does it will likely be accompanied with other paradigm shifts.

    Capitalism may ultimately prevail or die by virtue of being replaced with something else. I have, little confidence in the destruction of Capitalism any time soon (or within my lifetime.)

    If I get this new CTS, I'll almost immediately start lusting for its replacement, unless the entire auto industry retards its R&D efforts and keeps producing new cars that aren't changing or don't evolve. Not likely to happen as far as I can tell.
  • bingomanbingoman Member Posts: 373
    If everyone kept their vehicles for its full lifetime there would be a small market for new vehicles. One of the functions of first owners replacing their vehicles well before they disintegrate is to provide those vehicles to the lower classes who cannot afford the cost of a new vehicle. This is one way in which capitalism redistributes wealth. Therefore, do your part for capitalism and trade in your vehicles early.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    My job isn't to provide welfare for anyone. I already give enough in taxes, fees, and so on, as it is.

    I'll keep my wealth to redistribute to other parts of our economy. Afterall, it's not like Americans are saving much money ;)
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    A new Cadillac every 3-4 years in every garage!

    Every man a king, every man a king and you can be a millionaire. . .

    A few years ago, cars changed much more slowly -- other than style -- than they do these days. Perhaps cars will be made to be able to be updated, outfitted with newer technology, THEN those of us who want the new features, functions, performance, safety, economy, fun, etc, can keep the 2012 CTS for 10 years but not have to forego the new features that "revolutionalize" mileage and cornering in the 2014 MY. Instead of paying for the whole car, simply replace the engine management computer and the front and rear suspension modules (at a relative fraction of the cost.)

    Those who want to keep the features of the 2012 model can do so, those who want the features of the 2014 model can acquire them and those who can afford or simply want the 2014 model can elect that option.

    Of course, who knows, maybe there will be brand new bolt on fenders and all the other exterior (and interior) parts that can be replaced, essentially making it possible to buy a CTS sedan in year one, then in year three (after you have replaced the suspension, electronics and guidance system), you could replace the exoskeleton with the pieces that make up the then current SRX, etc. And when you do that, you can also decide to use the new infinite speed hyper transmission unit, etc.

    Still, unless mandated by the safety police, you could keep your car "as it was the day you bought it" until it completely wore out. And, even then, you would not have to acquire a new car, you could just update the car to a newer (not even the newest) generation.

    Fundamentally, we have some folks who don't place an economic value on a new(er) car high enough to buy/rent one every three years, opting instead to keep the car perhaps 10 years. Then we have other folks who see a higher economic value in replacing their cars regularly and somewhat frequently (every 36 months or 50,000 miles, for instance.)

    Since no one legislates (yet) that we must keep our cars at a certain level of "service pack," these two "extremes" can co-exist quite well.

    I wonder where telecommunications would be if people kept their cell phones for 10 years, rather than 10 months though? Or, like cars, would there be people who would still be using their "brick sized, 2 pound cell phones," side by side folks using their "credit car sized, 2 ounce cell phones?"

    Does demand drive new features, functions, performance, economy, safety? Or does supply "compel" (some folks like me) to replace a "functioning as designed and built" 2005 car with a 2008?

    Would the retaining (rather than replacement) of a "perfect" 2005 car reduce innovation, improvements in economy, safety, performance, features, functions (the supposed benefits?) Or does invention and innovation induce one to replace an otherwise OK 2005 with the 2008?

    If the 2008 ABC was without improvements over the 2005, and the 2005 required somewhat to a lot lower costs than replacing it with the 2008, I, for one, would have little reason to let loose of the 2005. The fact that the 2008 (presumably) will offer "new" and "better" technology is (for some of us, me, for one) worth the opportunity cost of the replacement of a perfect 2005 with the '08.

    There is a phrase on a plaque on one of my client's walls:

    "Use it up"

    "Wear it out"

    "Make it do"

    "Do without."

    Funny thing, he is of German heritage and always drives a new BMW 7 series.

    Takes all kinds.

    Sure hope the CTS lives up to "our" ever escalating expectations. :shades:
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Then we have other folks who see a higher economic value in replacing their cars regularly and somewhat frequently (every 36 months or 50,000 miles, for instance.)
    ****
    Except... this isn't good economic sense. It is good emotionally and makes you feel happier, sure. But the reality is that human reflexes and muscles virtually are the same now as they were 10,20,or even a thousand years ago. Me - if I had the money, I'd buy a Lotus Exige and keep it for 20 or 30 years. Because even if I gave it to my son in 20 years, it would still be more than he'd ever require or need get get around in. The same goes for, say, a 911. Sure, the 1980 model isn't as fast or as agile as the newest one, but was and still is more capable than 99% of drivers will ever require.

    I find it entertaining that people feel the need to replace their cars after 3-5 years as if they have evolved or need that much better of a car. I guess it's their right, but me... I wonder exactly what's the dirfference between my 20 year old 4Runner(current beater-commuter box) and a guy in his 3 series when we're both in 30mph traffic on the way to work. A/C - check. MP3 player(Kenwood stereo) - check. manula transmission - check. stuck in traffic only needing 35-40hp... check.

    Now, if I was like my cousin and actually did road-racing on the weekends, I might need a new car every three years...
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    To each his or her own.

    In this case, economic sense is exactly what it is. For some it is good, for other it isn't.

    Worth is sometimes based on hard cold facts. Sometimes worth is determined by "the market."

    Last year some houses were worth $X, this year they are worth 95% of $X. Some of these houses are new, never been lived in. Some of them, last year (or the year before) were being sold in days or weeks for the asking price.

    The house today is worth less because of demand, in part.

    For some folks, worth is "what they'd pay" to have it. Clearly some folks think it is worth more than others to have a young car. It doesn't make one possess more or less economic sense.

    Nor does it make the other one have more or less economic sense -- it is worth less to YOU it is not worth less to some other people.

    Some people would not pay $100,000 for a Porsche or the new Audi R8. Certainly there will be folks who will pay over sticker and never feel they were making an economic decision that was "bad."

    We need "things" to be valued differently by different people.

    Variety is the spice. . .

    And, Cadillac, life, liberty and the pursuit. . .

    Ahhhh platitudes.
  • biker4biker4 Member Posts: 746
    the threads meander in sometimes meaningless directions. :confuse:
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,142
    Yes, and it's might confusing/disconcerting to members who are new to this discussion - they drop in because in reading the discussion title, they figure they'll peruse the info available on the CTS.

    Let's try to meet those expectations, OK? Auto News is a great place for non-model specific conversation.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • ral1960ral1960 Member Posts: 74
    We've certainly gone off on a tangent, but not a meaningless one.

    I was looking at a current model CTS today and realized that the 08 model seems to have a much higher deck lid, but still has the same (inadequate) trunk space. I'm afraid I'll miss the nice creases on the trunk, which seem to be all but gone on the new model.

    While I expect a coupe model will be a fastback, I would prefer something more like the 79-85 Eldorado. A crisp notchback coupe would be unique among new cars.
  • bingomanbingoman Member Posts: 373
    If the rear deck lid is higher why do you believe that the trunk space is not greater than on the '03-'07 model?
  • ral1960ral1960 Member Posts: 74
    I'm pretty sure 13.8 cu ft was in the press release, which incidently is also the trunk space of the STS.
  • ral1960ral1960 Member Posts: 74
    I compared two photos of old and new CTSs and the rear deck height seems to be the same. The rear window does not go nearly as far up into the roof on the new gen., which makes the trunk look higher. It's all an illusion.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Mark,

    You do make a case for a strong arguement in favor of a Bimmer. I guess getting a 08' M3 Sedan for a mid-upper $40K 08' CTS "money" once you factor in all costs would make sense if it works out that way. I have always been a big M3 sedan fan and it looks like BMW has got another winner.

    The M3 sedan will be added to my shopping list if this BMW holds it's residual like you say but our local BMW dealer will probably try to charge over MSRP for it thus I'd buy the Caddy. ;)

    Rocky
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    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.)

    In my experience its badge appeal for most. Most people I know with BMW's must like the phrase "My BMW" because they try to get it out as fast as possible on meeting someone new. There are plenty of cars out there that cost less, if it were cost alone everyone would be driving Hondas, Chevys, Toyotas and Fords.

    If it were the exact same car for the exact same price with a Ford logo on it how many do you think they would sell?

    But my trusty old accountant still says, "buy that which appreciates, rent that which depreciates."

    Your accountant is an idiot. I have seen people and business's spend way to much money following that advice. You are much better off buying a car and keeping it than continually leasing cars.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I test drove an SRX with magnaride. I rented one for a long weekend drive to PA (900 miles round trip) without magnaride.

    I test drove another SRX also with magnaride.

    The differences are not subtle.

    On the SRX and some of the other Cadillacs that offer magnaride, you are put into a package buying situation that is somewhat over the top (even for me.)

    Is there any info that suggests magnaride will be offered on the new CTS? I thought I had been turning over every stone, but there seems to be a sport package but it does not mention magnaride (NOT that sport and magna have to go together.)

    Anyone?
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Growing up, I thought Cadillac was the badge appeal car. Even today I have some remaining memories and am sometimes reminded of them when someone says "that fill-in-the-blank is the Cadillac of that fill-in-the-blank."

    BMW does seem to be in the business of renting cars -- they are often heavily subvented, that is. Perhaps you are correct it would be better to buy a car and keep it. But in SOME cases the buy costs double the lease for the same period of time. For some, it seems too dear a price to pay, even if my accountant's general statement is unwise.

    One thing the CTS will have going for it, however, that makes me wonder about buy and hold (favorably) is the 100,000 mile 5 year warranty. The recent report showing the reliability ratings of some 36 cars puts Cadillac in the bottom 1/3 or perhaps even bottom 1/4. Audi is in the top 1/3 and BMW the middle third -- Mercedes is dead last, lower even than VW. My friend with a CTS says the thing has been trouble free for over 3 years.

    I liked the feel behind the wheel of both the current CTS and the SRX -- and the styling, polarizing for some, is more to my taste than a BMW 5.

    I'm coming up on the last 15 months of my Audi 36 month lease. The car, now on its second set of tires, and second battery in the key fob has been a joy in almost every way.

    The fact that the 2007 Audi is almost impossible to discern from a 2005 is also a reason to wonder "should I CPO it and keep it as snakeweasel and others here suggest?" Or, should I spring for the new CTS which, I still contend, will offer similar features as a 2008 to those already in my 2005?

    If the cost to do either is very close, wouldn't I be better off to go with the newer car rather than keep the older one, despite my affection and positive history with it?

    Anyway, the magnaride question will play a part -- try one with and without it, this is a great technology.
  • fenwahfenwah Member Posts: 58
    I wanted to see what kind of price I could get on a 07 CTS. I was able to get it for almost $2300 below invoice. I kept thinking to myself. Do I really want to shell out $33k on a car that looks really outdated (now that they went public with the 08 CTS), or would I rather spend a little more and get a newer model with a much nicer interior.

    I decided to hold off. My 98 Grand Prix, which I have owned for nine years, is still holding up well (minus some rust). I'm hoping I can get one more year out of my Grand Prix and get a 08 CTS or maybe a 08 GMC Acadia...yeah I know...totally different kinds of cars.
  • rayainswrayainsw Member Posts: 3,191
    My, my.
    More posts here from you, Mark, than I have seen in the LPS forum in a while.
    Interesting, as always.

    I decided to survey the posts here because I ( guilty of the New Car Every XX Months syndrome – CCBA ) might at least look at a sedan next time out.

    I now drive a Corvette Coupe.

    And the 2008 CTS pictures I have seen ( perhaps there will be one at the Atlanta Show this weekend ? ) seem to indicate exterior styling more to my liking than the current model. Though I admit to needing to see such 3-D objects as cars in the flesh ( in the metal and plastic & rubber ) before making any final determination.

    The CTS-v, if ( eventually ) available with a 6 speed manumatic may be of particular interest, when introduced. Depending on many specifications not yet officially released ( size, HP & TQ of the new V8 for that version, for example ) and exactly what styling changes are included in the “–v”, and price, I may be looking seriously.

    - Ray
    Addicted to [ great steaming piles of ] TQ . . .

    Re: Magnaride.
    I see no mention here:
    http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/events/autoshows/07naias/brands/cadillac/07_NA- IAS_Cadillac_CTS%20Specs_rev121506.htm
    2022 X3 M40i
  • joem11joem11 Member Posts: 2
    What's the current thinking on when the '08 CTS will be at the dealers?
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Mark, I would look for magneride to be available on the
    CTS-V or later be available. Next time I talk to Cadillac I will offer it as a product suggestion. Cadillac, has said they worked hard to get the suspension right. The G8 GXP/GTX based off the Holden Commodore HSV will have Delphi's Magneride system and it's adjustable FYI. ;) This should perhaps give us a clue that it might be available on the CTS someday. It might take a few years to make it. I love Magneride also as I had it on my 2002' Cadillac Seville STS. The Buick Lucerne CXS, Corvette, DTS, STS, SRX, Holden HSV's, and future G8 GXP/GTX models will have it also. ;) The 2010' Buick Velite Sedan will have it also. ;)

    Rocky
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    I can definately say that the magnetic ride technology is...

    It's like the car went through some sort of wierd time-warp and suddenly you get a suspension that's what you'd expect after over a century of making them. It makes standard suspensions look exactly like trying to do math with a slide-rule when there's this new electronic device calle a calculator. Hopelessly slow and outdated. Last century. Some guy hammering metal into a crude shape and calling it a suspension part.

    Versus something that looks like it belongs on some future tech show on Discovery Channel.

    Test drive the base model Lucerne with the V8 option. Now drive the CXS. The only difference between them other than 1 inch on the rims is the magnetic ride suspension. And it's exactly like the difference between a 3 and a M3. Something drastic just happened. Looks the same on the outside but two totally different animals.

    No torque steer. No lurching, no wobbling and floating through turns. No diving when you stop. It's all.. just... gone. That Lucerne suddenly drives like a late 90s S-Class.(yes it SO doesn't seem possible until you drive it)

    If they put Magnetic Ride on the new CTS, it'll without a doubt eat the IS350 for lunch, shred the G, and make the 5 series look like the overpriced yuppie bling-mobile that it is. (Mercedes... yeah they need to get away from Chrysler ASAP - they just dont compete anymore)
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    You nailed it!

    And, despite some other "yea buts" that I might PERSONALLY want to debate, I have to agree:

    "If they put MagnaRide on the new CTS. . ." well, hell, there's a new sheriff in town. :shades:

    Probably would make profit too at an add on price of, perhaps $1,500 to $1,750 MSRP. Don't cha think!?!
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I'm going to e-mail Cadillac, about this.......

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I e-mailed on the edmunds.com "2008'CTS forum" request that Magnetic Ride Control be available for the 2008' Cadillac CTS. I also asked when bluetooth would be available on the 08's as it's been delayed here so the europeans can get it first and I went off in a rant that we get neglected even though us americans are the most loyal buyers. I'll be looking forward to my response. :)

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Just curious if anyone heard any more news on the 09' CTS-V ????? The CTS-V, I think will be moved up to my first choice of new cars I want to buy.

    #1 09' CTS-V

    #2 08' CTS-AWD

    #3 08' CTS-RWD

    Rocky
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I believe the order info for the CTS will be available next month on GM's dealer site. Do you ever go to that site? There is no '08 Caddy vehicle info yet but there will be in three weeks.
  • carnaughtcarnaught Member Posts: 3,497
    When's the car due in showrooms?
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I believe in July or August.
  • socalbmmrsocalbmmr Member Posts: 12
    I've been scouring the net for any more shots other than the old spy shots and the NAIAS shots, as well as those on cadillac.com -- has anyone seen any others?

    I'm curious about exterior/interior color combos... one thing I think that has really set the 3-series apart from its competitors lately has been its choice of cool colors both exterior and interior. My hope is that Caddy offers something other than the typical black, tan and grey choices... chocolate brown or red would be cool leather colors...
  • ral1960ral1960 Member Posts: 74
    From the saleman's guide excerpted on GMI:
    "Optional "Mulberry" leather seating."
    Don't know if mulberry is a color (dark purple) or a brand.
  • socalbmmrsocalbmmr Member Posts: 12
    Hmmmmm... interesting. Can you send me the link to GMI? And what exactly is GMI?! Forgive my ignorance... :)

    I'm really getting excited about the CTS... it might be my first domestic!
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    GM doesn't want to say "Burgundy". Gotta love these new names. "Lunar sunrise pearl mist glowing...(and the color isn't even mentioned yet)"

    How about real colors? Heh.

    Take blue. When was the last time you ever saw a car with only "blue" as the color?
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    If it comes to pass, as some here contend, that the new CTS comes to market priced "within reach" of the outgoing CTS (MSRP) if similarly equipped -- I think that is a good thing. And, a question, are those of you who are like me in wanting "my CTS -- should I get one -- to be AWD" thinking that the AWD "feature" should add at most $1,900 to the bottom line of the CTS?

    If that is so, doesn't that make a 258HP ALL optioned AWD CTS come to market at $45,000-ish? And, if that is so, what does that mean the cost of the 300HP version would be? $47,500-ish (plus shipping and handling?)

    Now, at that price, you are likely to be above the typical BMW 3 and Audi A4 MSRP -- but only by 2 or 3 thousand, and truth be told, if you configure your BMW with similar equipment to what the CTS will most certainly have, the BMW and/or the A4 will be between $38 and $50,000. I have recently priced both cars just for "fun."

    Now, I am cognizant of the CTS's advantage (to me at least) of a 5 series wheelbase and dimensions overall that would be much more to my liking than either the 3 series or the A4. So, even though I still contend the comparisons are a bit less apples to apples, the CTS may (in some instances) be cross shopped against an Audi A6 and a BMW 5 series.

    I can't remember the last time I had a car that had an MSRP of less than $50K and I am ready for one, and favorable to an American car as long as it is NOT a LOOOOOOSER (not that I think the CTS is, by any stretch.)

    So, as my wife's guest, on HER 1 year countdown to a new car, I am the not-at-all reluctant passenger on weekend after weekend of test drives of possible suspects to replace her "in today's $" $48,000 BMW X3.

    We tested the Cadillac SRX, Lincoln, MKX, the LandRover HSE, the Acura R and M - DX's, the X5 and of course the X3 (we even tested the Mercedes M class, but it just doesn't do a thing for me, or her.)

    Cut off my legs and call me shorty, we tested the MDX with magna ride (MDX Sport, so named.)

    The thing was $45,000 +. The X3 (just to cite one) was $48,000 +. The Acura had a superior technology package and thusly equipped with the magna ride was good to very good in the handling dept. It was $3,000 less than the X3.

    Just for fun, asked for a 36 month 45 K lease quote (I know some here are anti-lease, to each his/her own): MDX $865/mo. X3 $623/mo. (and the X3 currently is without a "program" so an even more expensive BMW AWD 3 series is actually $613/mo, same deal.)

    Despite the superior sound system and technology package and some otherwise "attractive" features of the MDX, my wife (both an MBA and JD), said, "why would I pay $240 more for a $3,000 less expensive car. The MDX must have a poorer residual and probably a crummy money factor (interest rate.)" Her point, was that the financing arms of companies, although, big and powerful, cannot lose money or gain unreasonable risk -- and, er, make it up in volume. The Fed is the Fed, BMW or Acura Credit is not the Fed.

    Sure residuals can be propped up, and even insured -- but doing so isn't free.

    Her conclusion was that the BMW had the ability to use a higher residual (which it did) because it was actually known to LIKELY be worth more in 36 months than the less expensive MDX would be proportionately speaking.

    My conclusion is that one should look at the MSRP of a car, the acquisition cost of the car as if it were being paid for IN CASH, and then it should have a lease calc run to determine the residual in dollars (even if subvented.)

    What in the wide wide world of sports does all this have to do with the NEW CTS?

    I know the argument (for and against) leasing, that has and is put forth here and else where (on edmunds, and other places.) But, GMAC is a separate company and so is BMW Financial. Not wanting to lose money is compelling. So, if the current on-line calculators are any [even slightly plausible] indication of "retained value" and even representatives of a willingness to sub-vent the cost of money (and I grant, the new CTS and the new Audi and the new BMW, etc etc etc will change the dynamic), it would seem that those who are prone to favor leasing will be able to lease a BMW 3 series for less than a CTS and a BMW 5 series for a reasonably small incremental amount more than the CTS.

    Hopefully, there will be some "programs" for the CTS perhaps after it has been out in the market for a while (6 months?) If not, it would seem that a casual scan of the automobile new car classifieds that seem to overwhelm the Sunday Morning papers would mitigate NOT in favor of acquiring a new CTS, even though it might appear to be the bargain of all bargains. For, if the financing arm of the respective companies reveal their residual, I am not unconvinced that their figures do, in some way, represent "the market."

    The X3 had a residual of, as I recall, 64% for the lease I mentioned. The Acura was much lower.

    For the leasing crowd, an otherwise attractive $45,000 CTS may be "priced beyond one's ability to justify and rationalize" even though the competition may be some 10% -12% higher in MSRP.

    Apples and apples, the $45K MDX were it the exact same cost as the X3 (at $48K) on a lease, would be very attractive. Apples and apples, based on term and MSRP, the MDX ought to be about 5% less per month, minimum. Instead it is over 30% more. One would have to have a lot of love for two cars that were priced at $45K and $48K to take the $45K model over the $48K model for a 30%+ premium, all other things being monitarily this close.

    Yes, it is too soon to tell, yes, given the paucity of product information about the new CTS, this post is just barely on topic, hanging by a thin thread -- but hopefully the spirit of my meaning, my rationalization for "concern" in other words, is not too far off the mark. For it matters little if you buy or lease, if one car has a (for instance) 20% higher residual and a 10% higher MSRP, it is the one that will most likely have the lowest total cost of "ownership" over a given period regardless of the form of that ownership: buy, finance or lease, for example.

    I keep thinking, "if my $53,000 Audi is $640 per month, a $45,000 Cadillac ought to be ABOUT $537 per month." Hope I'm right. :shades:
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    45K will probably buy you the CTS-V. The base with the 3.6 will be starting at about $35K.
  • bruceomegabruceomega Member Posts: 250
    markcincinatti,

    "..... the CTS's advantage (to me at least) of a 5 series wheelbase and dimensions overall that would be much more to my liking than either the 3 series or the A4 ....."

    In a prior post, I listed the sizing of the 08 CTS AWD compared to the 07 530Xi. They were so close you could almost say they were identical in size, but the 530Xi was 373 pounds lighter.

    Somewhere in CarSpace, a link to the brochure for the 2008 5 series was posted and I downloaded that. According to that information, the 535Xi and 08 AWD CTS will be very close in both size and weight- 535Xi is only 98 pounds less than the 08 AWD CTS.

    Bruce
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Except I will not be shopping for a base car. I will be comparing pretty much maxed out versions to similarly equipped versions.

    There is no way a CTS-V will be, thusly equipped, priced at $45K.

    I still find it encouraging that some here feel a maxed out 300HP AWD CTS will be under $49K.

    Cadillac configuration of an STS, for example, starts out at such a friendly price. Then WHAM the dang thing shoots to over $60K if you want AWD and Magna Ride.

    The new CTS, unless it comes in minimalist option form (meaning packages are not required, unless one wants them to be) will, IMHO, follow the STS's model.

    If I want an AWD version with Navigation and Sat radio, IF I said, I'll bet somehow there will be thousands of dollars worth of other stuff that may come along.

    Probably, for me, that will be just fine. Probably.

    But, some of these cars, especially from Cadillac and Lexus, to name two, pile package after package on top of each other.

    Here's one -- all my cars have heated rear seats. To get them on an Infiniti M35 (for example) requires the Premium package, some $10,500, as I recall.

    I don't know who taught who, but more and more this is the way it seems.

    Complain all you want about the overpriced XYZ from Germany or Sweden or where ever. But when I price some of these cars, I literally wonder how the marketing folks who put these programs and packages together breathe in the vacuums they must inhabit.

    With only what we know at this point, the CTS looks like a really attractive and high feature, function, content and value for the buck car. I simply wonder since more and more of these cars are leased (for right or wrong) why someone wouldn't go for the 530xi over the CTS if the mo pay was "within spittin' distance" of each other.

    Just like I wouldn't pay $865 for a $45K Acrua when I could have a $48K BMW for $623, same terms.

    I'd almost always pay a little more for my favorite, but so many of these cars are more alike than they are different, styling and perhaps some content being the main differentiators. So, that "a little bit more" just doesn't make sense or at least as much sense as it used to.

    I'm looking for different, better and if possible a higher value. If there are almost no compelling reasons to go with one vs the other, I would imagine most people would go with the more expensive MSRP'd product that had the same 36 month cost of ownership.

    Folks writing a $45K check vs a $55K check lump sum may disagree, but even then, the basis for the lower short term cost is, in part, the anticipated rate of depreciation. Planning to keep the car until the wheels turn square? Well, yes that may affect the decision, but with leasing on the rise, it is perhaps not the majority thought process.

    over 75% of BMW's are leased. My local Cadillac dealer says it is over 50% for his products, and rising. I don't know if this is a localized phenom. The BMW number, so says my dealer owner, is not simply a local number.

    I would like the Cadillac as an alternative, a financially sound alternative for my mode of acquisition.

    All speculation at this point.

    And, that's the good news.
  • socalbmmrsocalbmmr Member Posts: 12
    BMWs are hard to say no to when the lease is so compelling. On a 3-series, you're looking at a quoted 60% residual value for 12k/year 3year lease and a money factor (as of right now) of about .0015. CHEAP!!

    If the new CTS can compete at that level, and still be a few $$K less out the door, then it'll be a slam-dunk.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,142
    You do realize that Edmunds doesn't make options available on vehicles, right? We just post what manufacturers give us :)

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

Sign In or Register to comment.