Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Those comments said it looks worse than the CTS? Was that what you wanted me to read?
ctsjerry,
I'm really curious to know which Japanese cars you think look like a CTS. Seeing as how the Japanese have no style at all, in most cases.
M
On a different note, this morning on the way to work I saw three diferent CTSs within my 20 minute commute. All three were in the oncoming lane, first one was black, second cashmere, and last one was Diamond white. The black one takes the cake! It simply looked sharp. The cashmere was okay, but not my choice of color. The white one also had the chrome wheels so there was alot of glitter and it looked pretty good, but I think black or dark blue are the CTS's best colors.
A lot of people like the orginal 76'(?) Seville, but that one looked too much like a Chevy Nova to me. I liked the last one they made with that bustle back design.
So you're right there, but I'm not sure of the years, a Caddy expert will have to educate me on the years.
The G35 looks like a watered down CTS??? Oh my... I think you just like to stretch things for the sake of doing so, like you did in the XLR topic. There is no way the G35 with it's flat rear and rounded front looks anything like a CTS, watered down or not. The G35 Sedan isn't even mildly attractive to me, the CTS is.
M
http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/proddesc.jsp?year=2004&- amp;- amp;regionID=1&divisionID=5&type=0&vehicleID=328&- - section=col_trim&page=9&butID=3
Click on the highlighted color to see a sample.
It gives you an idea but the colors are a little off from what I think they would look like from a photo.
Scroll down on the home page.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/
The second generation Seville was the 80 - 85 model years. This Seville was the first front wheel drive Seville and the body was based on the Eldorado/Riviera/Toronado body. This car had a bustle back (taken from some old Rolls/or? style). I thought that the front end (basic Eldorado) did not fit with the rear end. The basic styling problem was the front fenders which were too squared off.
The third generation Seville was the 86-91 models which were greatly downsized and looked very much like the small GM cars (Grand Am) rooflines. External styling was not bad but the interiors were not very good, with the dash/instrument panel poorly done.
The fourth generation Seville was the 92-97 model, which got the northstar V8 in 93. This is perhaps the best looking Seville of all. This was followed by the current generation based on the 95 Aurora body platform. The basic styling is the same but the body stucture is much stiffer.
The 2004 Seville will be last of the current generation. Then it moves to the sigma (CTS) platform. I think that the CTS styling could be better, but is not bad. Perhaps the STS will improve on the basic theme. The next generation CTS may get the station wagon, the current generation probably will not. The SRX is probably as close to a wagon as we will get for a while.
The bustle-back Sevilles of the early 80's reminds me a lot of the current Rolls Royce Phantom styling. The RR has rounded hindquarters but both have exaggerated squared-off front fenders with a tall grill. These Sevilles were certainly daring in styling, but not the best handling vehicles out there, even with the optional touring suspension. Lincoln Mark VII LSCs were much better handling automobiles.
The Sevilles (and Eldos) of the late 80s were the worst of the product line. I disagree with fjk57702; the styling of this series was so forgettable. And the interior appointments weren't good either. The size of the vehicles were tiny compared to what was expected by customers in the market for this nameplate. The original 4.1L V8 was...well, a joke (no power, reliability).
The Gen 4 Sevilles had (thankfully) great styling, a respectable interior and in '93, a kick-butt engine. The current Gen 5 cars came on in '98 and they were okay...but they don't compete with the other makes nearly as well as the previous car did a decade ago.
Go to gmtv.feedroom.com and in the top left corner you will see a choice of channels.
Click on "New Vehicles"
Click on "More" until you see the 2004 CTS.
After you watch that click on "More" again and see the SRX and XLR videos.
Picture quality is very poor on all of these videos.
Merc, the "bustleback" Seville was 1980-85. I always liked the look of those cars and they were super plush inside, however, Cadillac really dropped the ball in terms of engineering and reliability. Whether it was the diesel, the V8-6-4 or the HT4100, that generation Seville had it. 1980 Sevilles could have the old 6.0 liter V8 in place of the diesel, otherwise that beautiful car was saddled with terrible engines.
fjk57702, I liked the 92 Seville when it came out and even today they are still sharp cars, but I like the tidier look of the current generation better. One problem with the 92-97 Seville was with the base(SLS) model. It's rear bumber valance wasn't as low as the STS's and as a result, the two muflers hung down in plain sight. Despite being a 5 year old design now, I still find the STS very attractive.
M
As to the Cimmaron it started as a small underpowered non-agressive looking car, but by the end of the run in '88 it was the most powerful Cadillac in terms of power to weight, and acceleration. It may not have been a race car but it handled every day driving quite well. GM has had a bad habit of killing cars just about when the engineers have gotten out the bugs. I'm glad about all the bugs have been removed from the CTS before it was introduced.
I think it eventually had about 140 hp.
My personal feeling is that a true luxury car can't have a 4 cylinder.
The Saab and mercedes C-class would never be on my list.
No matter how much they refine it, or how many balance shafts they put in the block it will still not be as smooth as a V6 or V8.
*Sigh*
Well, might as well kill two birds with one stone. Hopefully this will be the longest single stretch of time I'm without my car. We have a Deville as a rental for the time being, which is a very different car, especially after having a CTS for the last year. I can't believe I was a Deville owner. I could never go back, at least with this design. The DTS is nice, but the CTS wins my heart.
There are expensive cars that make no pretense toward 'luxury' - Vipers, for instance. The Ferrari 360 Stradale. Or is being able to afford one the luxury in itself?
If you define 'luxury' as 'plush and soft', then the CTS doesn't qualify, neither do the majority of its competitors.
Is a fully-tarted 540i a 'luxury' car where a cloth-upholstery 520d is not? They're still the same structure, the same chassis, right pedal aside they feel more alike than different going down the road.
For many Americans 'luxury' means 'leather upholstery and lots of gadgets'. As far as I'm concerned, a solid structure and unflappable chassis are the greatest luxuries you can have in a car, and they're things that the vast majority of American 'luxury' cars have never had.
The Cimarron was an adequate car, but it was nothing that should have been sold under the Cadillac name.
bingoman, the bustleback Seville sold pretty well, especially got a car that could list for over 20K in 1980 when optioned out. When the car was redesigned for 86, sales dropped. I do think the bustleback was sort of a fad and not something Cadillac could have carried on forever, but you do have to admit it was distinctive. The Lincoln and Chrysler(forgot that one) that had this trait did not look good at all. In fact, Chrylser only made the Imperial(the early 80s version) for a couple of years. As for the Cimmaron, they may have gotten the bugs out by the end, but the car was still no Cadillac. Even as a kid(which I was when the Cimmaron was on sale) I never thought it was a true Cadillac. I used to see one and would say "thats one of those small, cheap looking Cadillacs".
1/4 mile in 14.9 @ 92.72 mph.
Same as the Infinti G35.
So there!!
MT gave the CTS 3.2 auto. numbers as: 0-60: 6.86 and 1/4 mile: 15.20 @ 90.70 in their comparison test vs. the G35 (6.21 - 14.61@95.67) and the 330i in their August 2002 issue.
- Ray
Waiting patiently for the Postal Service to deliver a copy of this issue . . .
1/4 = 15.3@89.7
Another test that I happen to have handy = R&T July 2002. CTS manual: 0-60 = 7.3
1/4 = 15.7@91.3
From the same R&T comparo. G35 (Auto.): 0-60 = 6.2
1/4 = 14.7@95.2
Interesting data points . . .
Cheers,
- Ray
Noticed a reported (estimated) top speed in R&T of 147 mph for the CTS manual - hmmmmm . . .
Second, moisture is easily visible inside the component, droplets on the inside surface. If you got it, you'll see it. The problem is supposedly due to a defective batch of parts and doesn't affect current builds. Mine is pre-Sept. 2002, but I don't know when the fix was made. I noticed seeds from trees, etc., especially along the bottom edge, but I didn't look closely enough to determine if they were inside the "lamp" or merely in the open space between the component edge and the trunk lid. Looks more like they simply get into the crevice and are difficult to wash out. Perhaps the replacement will solve that problem, but I kinda doubt it.
I would be happy if the car did it in 6.7-6.8 in the real world because that would be a full second quicker than my Intrigue.
The moisture seemed to disappear after several days in the sun but now with 98º weather it is still trapped there and not going away. Even more bugs and debris are showing up. Looks disgusting!
The only thing that he mentioned about the CTS V was that the cars won't show up at dealers until late Jan.
The local dealer has a 2004 CTS with the 3.6 engine but won't show it off yet til they move more of the 2003. They have 5 2003s left, most of which are fully loaded autos with great deals. He also said that manual trans are in higher demand right now because there will be none available until the CTS V and much later production of the 2004 CTS.
They had to search for a 2003 with a manual trans for a local Dr. and had to go to 6 dealers before one would dealer trade . They want to hold on to the manuals.
The 3.6 engine is very quiet while idling ( he started it ) and he said that it was surprisingly fast. It is silver with a two tone interior. Dash looks similar but the cruise is no longer on the steering wheel. A gauge is visible and not a clock in the dash (Yeah!)I may have to go back because they have it in a secure area not visible to the public and the salesman could stay there and I couldn't be there alone. No test drives yet. He expects two more in a few weeks.A red and a blue.
_________________________________
Acck. Why would they move a control like that, which is well liked by most people in my experience? Please don't tell me it will be dumped on cheapo multi-function stalk!
http://www.cheersandgears.com/boards/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5958
Fortunately, my gripes about the car (including the stereo) are minor! Other than a few irritating 'features' the CTS is an INCREDIBLE car.
On another note, did I hallucinate the post linking to the GM site with all the cool CTS-V videos?? It seems to have disappeared???
http://gmtv.feedroom.com/notenabled.jsp?miss=wrfb&fr=062503_1- 15930_171570xf5fef4680axw5ad9
The unit cost of $510 plus labor for the initial inspection to determine if a warranty replacement is necessary, and to remove and replace, would probably be well above $600.
I just love my 2003 CTS with the manual trans but I would even like a CTS V better!
Tornado, the position of the cruise control on the bottom of the steering wheel was a very bad ergonomic mistake to begin with. Do you really want to be feeling along the bottom of the wheel at 80 mph or so in order to engage cruise, or would you like to take your eyes off the road in order to find the buttom. I surely do not like to. I think that location was a worse engineering choice than the clock on the dashboard instead of a temperature gauge. Just my opinion, but i've been driveing for fifty years.