Cadillac CTS/CTS-V

eaton53 · September 2003

Great car, but it's got all of the inherent high performance FWD issues. The CTS is a much better car... I'd start saving.

Your car will be ready for 2005, which probably means about a year from now.

jemiller · September 2003

When going to larger tires there's several factors to consider. The only time ABS considerations will normally come into play is if you RADICALLY change tire rolling radius (revolutions/mile) or get into different-diameter tires front/rear (not something you'd want to do.) I personally don't know of any ABS systems that will be tripped up by a change of tire with a near-stock rolling radius - don't think even the lame Delphi pseudo-ABS GM used on lower-end products gets any WORSE (hard to imagine) with a stickier tire...

You don't want to change diameter significantly because it will affect EVERYTHING - performance, speedometer accuracy, ride, etc. Check the revolutions/mile number for the OEM tires and stay within a couple percent.

If you go wider on the stock wheels, you want to make sure that the tire will still be adequately supported. Unless you have a specific reason for doing so, I would never use a tire whose design wheel width was more than 1/2" wider than the wheel you want to put the tire on.

The Tire Rack site generally has all the details you need for the tire lines they carry. The most important dimensions are (a) design rim width (b) revs/mile and (c) section width.

Some critical points to remember about tires:

1) A good small tire will stick, turn, ride, etc. better than a cheap big one. Some tires are better deals than others, but in general you get what you pay for.

There aren't a lot of choices in the OEM 225/50-17 size, but one which Tire Rack catalogs is a Michelin MXX3 - one of the two or three all-time superglues of the tire world. The E36 M3 guys cried rivers when Michelin stopped making them in the M3 sizes. I'd bet (no experience, mind you) a CTS on stock-size MXX3s will be quicker than a CTS on most larger tires.

2) A wide tire on a narrow wheel will ride great, stick badly, turn in even worse.

In theory you could go to a 245/45-17, the diameter/revs per mile are right. What's the width of the wheel? Some 245/45-17s show a 7.5in design rim width though all the OEM applications I'm aware of for that size used an 8in wide rim. Of course, that still doesn't guarantee you won't have fender-contact issues to deal with.

wwhite2 · September 2003

I was cruising down Rt 9 and my eye noticed the gas gauge plummeting from near full to empty . It hasnt moved from the bottom . Looks like the sender unit in the tank has failed . Has anyone else experienced this ?

batmanscts · September 2003

wwhite:
Haven't had that experience with my CTS. However, the story sounds familiar. I think it is the same one I told my dad when he was raking me over the coals for not refilling the tank on his new '56 Olds when I was in high school. "Honest Dad, it showed almost full when I brought it home last night. There must be something wrong with the guage." :>)

wwhite2 · September 2003

I filled it for a baseline . the gauge didn't budge , the full range on the DIC is reading "low"

bingoman · September 2003

Might be the sender wire connector disconnected.

Reminds me of a good way to theft proof a car. Put a hidden switch under the dashboard to cut off power to the fuel pump. If anyone attempts to steal the car they get just far enough to find themselves in a awkward position and will probably abandon the car and run.

automole · October 2003

I haven't experienced the full to empty plummeting but I've frequently experienced the 1/4 tank to empty 'plummet'. Is anyone else as annoyed with the gas gauge as I am?

Once it hits just below 1/4 tank I can drive for a short distance and then the gauge drops like a rock to below empty and the DIC chimes and says "Low Fuel Range". I've also noticed that when you get under 30 miles or so DTE (distance to empty) the only information you get is a generic "Low Fuel Range" message. Now my questions for the GM engineers are "why do I give a crap how many miles I can drive when I have a full tank of gas?" and "why is it when I'm near empty and desperately NEED to have a DTE estimate the only message I get is 'Low Fuel Range'?"

GBrianK: I can't speak about the stock 17" wheels but if you've got the base model 16's my guess is that you're pretty much out of luck fitting wider tires on the stock rims. I looked behind my stock wheels and found I could barely fit my pinky between the inside sidewall of the tire and the strut. Again, there are options if you want to go with larger aftermarket wheels. Good luck trying to find an 8" wide 17" diameter rim for the CTS...I found it very difficult to find anything wider than 7.5" in an 18" rim that would fit the CTS. FWIW I would have just as easily gone with a narrower 18" tire (225/45/18) and a 7.5" wide rim if it wasn't for the fact that there was a MUCH better selection of tires to choose from in a (245/40/18) size. I'd personally avoid the MXX3's due to the 140 treadwear rating and high price but jemiller and I disagree on EVERYTHING!

akirby · October 2003

Is there a reset button for the message center? On my LS whenever you get a warning message (low fuel, oil change, ac filter change, etc.) you have to hit reset to get rid of it at which point it returns to the normal display.

calicadi · October 2003

Stock 17" set up is 225/50/17 for a total dia of 25.85. Research I did awhile back indicated the following would be workable combinations;

for 19 in. rims
245/35 for a total dia of 25.8 in., but if you plan to install the Eibach spring kit drop it back to 235/35

for 18 in rims
255/45 for a total dia of 27 in.

Two CTS variant models were equipped as follows:

CTS-R - 245/40/18
CTS-M - 255/40/19

The CTS-V is slated to sport 245/45/18

Dropped my CTS off for an oil change this morning. Only three CTS's on the lot that I could see. All were the 3.6L autos. One lux pkg and two std. The lux was stickered at 35K and change. The std's were $32.5K. Colors were cashmere, silver and black.

jemiller · October 2003

As I said, it depends on what your goals are. If long treadlife is a priority, then you're trading off adhesion to get it. A valid thing to do in many cases, though I don't think it makes much sense to go out and buy big 18in wheels then look for big fat tires with a 300+ UTQG treadwear rating.

Likewise all-season tires - I have no use for them, I live in California and the only time I'd ever go to the snow they wouldn't be adequate anyway. Others may drive in conditions where light-to-moderate snow conditions make all-season tires useful.

By the way, the pinky you can get between the tire sidewall and the spindle (is this front or rear?) is probably 10-12mm, which assuming that bump or jounce travel doesn't reduce that clearance (something you'd have to verify - if the piece immediately inboard of the tire is the spindle/hub carrier - there aren't struts in a CTS - then the clearance should not change) is really quite a bit of clearance. In some applications you'll see as little as 3mm (1/8") clearance used without trouble.

GM used to have some very extreme tire-chain-clearance requirements in their internal design criteria, which left you with little 205/70-14 tires in fenderwells big enough for something 12in wide.

golfnut5 · October 2003

I have owned several GM and Ford vehicles. GM's fuel gauges seem to stay on full for what seems like forever, but once near 1/4 tank drops like a rock. Ford's fuel gauges come off full rather quickly, but hangs on 1/4 tank for what seems like forever. I like the Ford setup better, I know when I am on 1/4 tank I have plenty of time to find a filling station.

automole · October 2003

...yes it isn't the space between the front strut (or I guess I should say "front coil over high gas-charge monotube damper" AKA strut/shock) but it isn't really the space between the spindle and wheel either. I'm referring to the clearance between the "arm/link thingamajiggy" (spindle/hub carrier?) that connects the upper control arm to the spindle/hub/brake assembly. If memory serves me right I'd say it's closer to 8mm than 12mm but that's just my very loose guesstimate. My point wasn't that the clearance would change (there obviously isn't any problem with the stock setup which was what I was referring to) but that you'd be pretty much 'screwed' if you intended to put tires on the stock rims that were much wider (a couple of centimeters) than the factory size.

As for the tire selection, it's agreed that you're trading adhesion for treadlife *to an extent* when selecting tires although I'd venture to say that in any case the tire with the better treadwear rating would also have better traction after a year of spirited driving
(in my experience bald tires typically have poor adhesion characteristics

)
A more difficult choice for me was to find a tire that balanced wet/dry performance since much of my driving is in the rain.

I also think it's equally ridiculous to put racing tires on a 4 door sedan with a V6 that does 0-60 in 7+ seconds and has traction control. "Hooking-up" has never been a problem under any circumstances in my CTS

. I'd also guess that a less-sticky fat tire on an 18" rim might do better than a super-sticky tire on a 16" rim on the skidpad but that's just my 'hunch'. In any case, my personal reason for going with 18" rims was due to the fact that I felt handling could be improved while also improving the cars appearance. IMO my car handles MUCH better (even with my lowly Bridgestone RE750's with 300+ UTQG) and more importantly (since I'm admittedly a somewhat superficial SOB)...it looks friggin' cool.

golfnut5: Ford's setup IS much better. I've never had any problem knowing when to get gas until I bought the CTS. With the CTS's gauge empty looks the same as 15 miles until empty.

calicadi: I'd go with the 245/40/18 over the 255/45/18 due to the fact that it's closer in diameter to stock and about a centimeter more narrow for easier fit.

v8lincolnguy · October 2003

On my Intrigue, it dropped pretty quickly to E once you were down to the 1/4 mark, but you could drive FOREVER on E with the light on. Not something I recommend, but several times I drove quite a way when the needle was all the way down and the light was on. On my LS, once you get to about 50 miles remaining, the low fuel warning comes on and you can't get a driving range anymore. I think that they do this because the driving range is not an exact figure and they want to prevent people from seeing that they have say 40 miles left, then do some high speed driving and significantly reduce that range in a matter of minutes. I know with the Lincoln's V8, that is very easy to do:)

akirby · October 2003

When you see "low fuel", press reset and it will go back to the Miles to Empty reading. It will reappear every 10 minutes.

If you have something you want to hide, put it in the owner's manual. Apparently nobody reads them anymore.

jemiller · October 2003

Yes, agreed, you're not going to go that much wider with 8mm clearance, you might get a half-inch more rim/tire width if you paid very careful attention to wheel offset.

Just from the spec sheets the 245/40-18 looks like the right size for the 6cyl car, you could go to a 245/45-18 but then your revs/mile goes down a little vs the OEM size which unless you've got bags of low-end torque isn't what you want.

Anything much larger e.g. 255/45-18 and you've got to be concerned both with clearance and with the impact on overall gearing.

gbriank · October 2003

Hey folks:

Just finished my 24 hr drive...On a scale of 1 (sucks) to 5 (amazing):

Engine - 6 (The engine is begging to be pushed)
Transmission - 5
Interior Materials - 4
Seat - 4
Steering wheel - 3
Suspension - 4
Fuel Economy - 3
Computer ease of use - 3
Stabilitrak/Traction Control - 5

The 3.6l is definitely a winner and the transmission is perfectly mated to this car. I clocked 0-60 in 6.7 sec. in Sport mode. Bravo GM!

The interior materials are not bad. I can see why folks complain about the headliner (easy to get it dirty). Many of the styling cues were stolen...ahem, borrowed from Saab. Everything from the SID (otherwise known as DIC to Cadillac), climate control, security system, right down to the air vent controls are right out of Saab's parts bin. This is a cost cutting measure and Cadillac has done a great job in adapting it for the US market.

Seats were comfortable, but could have used more lower lumbar support. Cadillac has designed the seat for a wide variety of body sizes, so that may be a sacrifice to get a universal seat.

The steering wheel is TOO BIG. What is this, a Deville? I know, I know they probably borrowed from the parts bin. It needs to be smaller and with more defined grips at the 10 and 2 positions. Also, where is the tilt/telescopic function? If Cadillac is listening, borrow the steering wheel set-up from the new 9-3. When I got comfortable seat setting with the pedals, the steering wheel was too close. And vice versa.

The suspension was tuned almost perfectly, although it let through a lot of small pavement inperfection. Cadillac came very close to the set-up used in the 5 series BMW.

Fuel economy isn't all that good. Luckily, you can use Regular unleaded (at least according to the dealer). Never tried it...wonder if performance suffers? Nevertheless, it probably would be better if I was to settle down on the accelerator.

There are WAY to many things to do within the computer system. And if you are not technically saavy, don't leave home without your owner's manual.

Setting for Stabilitrak/Traction Control is perfect. After reading a few posts on this and other sites, I decided to deactivate TC. As this is the first rear wheel drive car I have drive extensively, I was quite surprised how it reacted when I hung a right out of a lot at 3/4 power. Talk about fishtailing! I decided that TC is a must, especially when driving in winter.

Overall, GM is made a MAJOR stride to change with this vehicle. Everything in it is a major improvement over grandpa's crusier. Unfortunately, Cadillac is still attemting to cater to the above 50 crowd.

v8lincolnguy · October 2003

My verdict on the CTS was about the same as yours except the engine would have been a 3 or 4 as the one I drove was an 03 with the 3.2. It appears the new 3.6 is a real winner. I've grown fond of the V8 power in my Lincoln, but I don't think I'll have any problem giving up 2 cylinders if I go with a CTS is a few years. I'm a gadget freak(sort of) so I really liked all the extra things the DIC in the CTS will do. If Cadillac is still catering to the "over 50" crowd with this car, then I guess I'm older than my age says I am(28). Other than the lack of a manual with the new V6(and that should be fixed next year) I see nothing in the CTS that would make it appear geared toward the older customer. And if Cadillac dealers are still catering to that customer, well you can't blame them completely as that is their bread and butter. As long as I get the attention and service that the 60 year old customer there in front of me gets, I don't care if everyone else at the dealership is over 60. I'm there for my car, not to pick up women:) Anyway, glad you enjoyed your 24 test drive. I certainly did with mine. On a side note, while driving by the Caddy dealer this morning they had an SRX right out front. Not a bad looking SUV(or whatever it is) at all.

akirby, I'm one of the few people to actually read owners manuals. I have spent some time with the LS's manual and had forgotten that you could reset the low fuel warning and get a range. How low of a driving range will it give you? BTW, have you ever used regular(87 octane) in your LS? More on that over in the LS forum.

jemiller · October 2003

As anyone who's seen my posts around here know, I think fairly highly of the CTS mechanically but don't much like the shape. Mainly I hang around hoping the CTS-V proves to be as good (to my [non-permissible content removed], not some magazine reporter's) as its mechanical specs would indicate (it definitely looks better with the big wheels and simpler nose, but the tall hoodline is still bum.)

That said, here's an upcoming CTS competitor that IMO is an out-of-the-park home run on shape.

http://www.imakenews.com/autospies/e_article000188711.cfm

The roofline is a little Audi-ish, but everything else looks perfect - the bulging fenders are reminiscent of '60s GM practice, the low hoodline and smooth-yet-aggressive nose cap are sweet.

akirby · October 2003

I've seen it go to single digits but never got it all the way to 0.

Don't use 87 in ANY car that's designed for 91+ including a CTS. You won't save any money in the long run because your fuel economy will decrease and you'll decrease power also. Whether it hurts the engine over the long run is moot because it doesn't really save any money in the first place so there's no reason to do it. If you can't get 91 it won't hurt to run a tank of 87 every now and then but I wouldn't make it a practice. Penny wise and pound foolish.

wwhite2 · October 2003

In my opinion it looks like a run of the mill Lexus . Kind of bland dont you think ?

calicadi · October 2003

Sorry looks same-o same-o to me. Round is out, edgy is in. Just check the new Lambo's and Ferraris.

I agree with you and automole on the 245/40/18. Anything bigger than that and you're going for show, not go.

eaton53 · October 2003

Another Toyota Boring Blob-O-Blandness.
Yawn.

rsteph · October 2003

Sorry, jemiller, I go with the thumbs down on that one too. Personal preference only, nothing more. Once again proves, though, that there are many different tastes out there.

automole · October 2003

...this won't come as a shock to jemiller (we seem to disagree on most subjective car features) but IMO that's one ugly blob of a car. I haven't seen anything as 'breathtaking' as that car since Ford released the Taurus in the 80's. Personally, that car could be the greatest mechanical masterpiece in the world and I wouldn't buy it based on looks alone. The 300C and the Ford 427 concept both look more promising to me...and I'd probably take the CTS-v over both of those.

v8lincolnguy · October 2003

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking that the rounded styling is so 1990s. I have to say, as much as I liked the looks of my Intrigue, the more angular lines of my LS make it look like a more modern car. I can certainly see some Audi in the sides of the new Lexus and the front end reminds me of a Dodge Intrepid. At least they ditched the knock-off MB E-class headlamps that the previous GS had. I really think Toyota is going through a styling crisis right now. While I've never found any Toyos very attractive, they at least had a reasonable sense of style to them. Now, many of their cars just look plain weird. Witness the Echo, Prius(why do automakers think that green cars have to be so ugly?), the Camry, the new Sienna, and the new 4Runner. Lexus has fared a little bit better thus far with the exception of the SC430.

jemiller · October 2003

I agree that a lot of recent Toyotas are just flat ugly - but it's the edgy ones like the Celica and the new Sienna that are the worst of the bunch. The Echo is awful, for other reasons (Toyota's trying to build sedans-as-phone-booths these days) but I find the Prius (both old and new) quite attractive.

The IS300 and LX470 are the only really attractive Lexes; the current GS430 is okay with fat tires on it, otherwise it's a melted blob. The GX470 is a ridiculous pagoda on wheels, and the SC430 is a convertible tortoise.

What I regard as ideal is a smooth shape, with a low and fairly short hood, front wheels pushed well out to the front corners, a tall greenhouse and enough contour to the sides to look muscular.

I still rate the current Benzes easily the best-looking cars in their classes, the E39 5-series and the old '60s-70s E3 (2500/2800/3.0/Bavaria) being probably the best-looking sedans ever, and the new E60 5-series wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the weird angles in some of the details. I'd rate the Intrigue and second-gen Aurora as being two of the best sedan shapes Detroit's ever done, but compromised by the front-drive big-front-overhang proportions. The Lincoln LS is great except for the ends - especially the cut-off, wall-of-cheap-red-taillights Mitsubishi rear.

I'm not a big fan of creased, folded, stapled shapes, though they can be tolerable if done well. The CTS' proportions are a little odd, though - the hood is too tall and the sides have a bunch of lines on them but no real contour.

For me, the CTS shape would just be something to tolerate in order to get the CTS-V underbits.

eaton53 · October 2003

My next door neighbor has a white SC400 with a subtle body kit and 18" 5-spoke wheels.

That is one fantastic looking automobile. Other than that one aberration, Toyota hasn't a clue about how to style a car.

The CTS, every other Cadillac and several other GM cars are better looking than any Toyota.

ctsgirl_2004 · October 2003

I just purchased a 2004 CTS (silver smoke). I love it so much. I live in New England and would like to know if anyone has any information about how the CTS performs in the winter. Do I need snow tire or should I be OK without them. Also, I was told by the cadillac dealer to use regular gas (87 octane). Would using 91 octane result in better performance?

redgtconv · October 2003

The dealer was right. If you have the 3.6L engine, then you should only use regular gas. Premium gas might actually hurt your performance.

batmanscts · October 2003

Congrats on getting your new CTS. Hope you enjoy it as much as the rest of us enjoy ours.

For lots of previous discussions and opinions about your questions, use the search capability on this board. Just type in the words snow tires, gas, or octane, and you will find a year or more of discussion on these issues. This site contains lots of interesting and useful info about CTSs. Using the search capability can provide you good info without having to read all the postings for the past couple of years.

Here's my opinion: (BTW, I've lived in New England in some of the worst winters and now live in Colorado.)

I wouldn't put snow tires on my CTS. It will do fine in most winter situations if you drive carefully, slowly, and use the snow feature on the transmission when you really need it. If the weather is bad enough that our CTS can't handle it, we shouldn't be trying to drive such a nice car in it anyway. If you have nothing else to drive or no alternative rides, take a snow day and stay at home during the real blizzards. Use that day to read all the prior postings on this board. :>)

My 2003 CTS performs very well on 87 Octane. I've used both 87 and 91/92 Octane in mine. It could be my imagination, but it seems to perform better on 87.

Enjoy the New England fall colors in your CTS.

riskybusiness · October 2003

Get the snows. I drove my '03 CTS Sport until end of November last year, thru 2 minor storms (2-3" of wet snow)and though the car tracked fairly well once moving, the traction control kicked in a lot even on slow starts, sometimes nearly cutting all power to the wheels. I put on V-rated Blizzak LM22's (225/50R17), same size as the stock tires, and the difference was very noticeable. Dry performance was acceptable, still cornered well, and tracked much better in the snow and slush. Not cheap, but definitely worth it.

akirby · October 2003

Use whatever the owner's manual calls for. If it calls for 87 in the new engine, use it. Using 91 probably won't help and could actually hurt. But if it calls for 91 use at least 91. Using 87 won't save any money.

necros · October 2003

ctsgirl: It really depends on the snow you're looking at. I'm sure some people say snow when they mean something different.

I gotta disagree with batmancts, though. I'm also in Colorado. Have you (batman) driven the CTS is real snow yet with the stock tires? Tried it up a hill?

jemiller: I think the Celica is the only GOOD looking car Toyota makes any more, so I guess we're on opposite sides of the spectrum. Although I also like the IS300. By the by, I'm driving around in a 2004 M3 this evening. Envy me.

nferr · October 2003

I just went through the decision process on cars. Really liked the CTS but was unsure about the RWD here in Connecticut. I live on a big hill and already went through two bad winters with a Mitsubishi 3000GT and then a Mustang GT. Last month I leased a Jaguar X-Type but I gave the Cadillac dealer a last shot. A 2003 base CTS 5 speed came in over $150 more a month to lease than the Jaguar. That and the AWD on the Jaguar was the deciding factor. The CTS was a bit more powerful and a little better handling. The Jag has a nicer interior and a softer ride but also grips really well. I agree with the Saab interior comparisons as the car I was replacing was a Saab convertible.

The funny thing is last Friday I decided to start up my 1994 Seville STS which has been sitting around for a couple of weeks. Took it for a ride and blew past an elderly guy who cut me off and almost hit me on a winding two lane road. I alsmost forgot how darn fast that STS is.Its not the 0-60 with that car, its the awesome power from about 40-140. The Jags been in my garage ever since and I've been driving the STS. In fact I think I'll let the wife take the Jag for a while and take the STS off the market. Also I just love the body style of the 92-97 STS.

batmanscts · October 2003

Slight Retraction/Correction: If I intended to drive my CTS regularly in snowy, icy, winter weather, I'd probably follow the advice of riskybusiness and put Blizzaks on all four wheels.

necros: The answers to your questions are Yes and Yes. As you know, you can't drive very far in Colorado Springs without driving up and down some long hills. The last quarter mile of the road leading to my house is uphill on about a 45-degree grade. I've climbed it easily with my CTS in second gear (auto) in ~4 inches of snow and at other times on packed snow/ice. One problem with the CTS (and several other vehicles) in deep snow is the low ground clearance. I've pulled into very deep snow just to test the snow mode. I ended up backing out because I didn't want to risk damage to the lower portions of the body/paint just to find out whether or not I could plow through.

In what you might call "real" snow, I usually follow the advice I gave to ctsgirl and leave the CTS in the garage. (That's why I also own an SUV.)

For another opinion on the CTS performance in snow, see the extract below from a posting by thebug.

#2528 of 4724 What a car by thebug Apr 07, 2003 (3:06 am)
Just finished a 4500K road trip with the CTS. Drove for six days in all for seasons (sometimes in the same day), this included a blizzard in the Rockies for 120 miles (coming and going) through the twisty turneys, a tornado in Kansas, with hail and heavy rain, icy roads in Ohio, and very pleasant weather on the West Coast. This was the ultimate test drive. The car handled flawlessly.

The car is awesome. Tested all the cars systems (including the OnStar), from sitting still idling for 2 hours in a snow storm at Vail Pass, to performance at high and low speeds (engine breaking is excellent) in snowy/clear mountainous terrain, and everything in between.
(End of extract.)

Cheers!

wwhite2 · October 2003

IF you have to drive on snow covered roads during/after storms get snows all around. If you can wait for the sun to come out and the salt/chemicals to work then you dont need snows .
When it snows here in Ma . The CTS stays in the garage and I take the truck.

necros · October 2003

Glad to see you've gotten the CTS through some snow, and also glad you're being realistic about it. The only reason I was concerned was that, in the past, we've had many people come in with questions about snow, and many just blithely assure them that the CTS can handle whatever the weather throws at them. Which, unfortunately, just ain't true. I only end up having to leave the CTS at home probably twenty days out of the year, but on those days, I'm glad to have a 4WD car as a backup. If you live in a snowy area, and the CTS is your only car, you're gonna need some snow/ice tires.

bingoman · October 2003

I miss all the fun of driving in snow since I moved to Los Angeles. lol!

mbukukanyau · October 2003

There Could be A CTS coupe and Convertible to 'do battle' with BMW and Mercedes.
There is also romoured to be a smaller Caddy in the works for the smaller European and Asian Streets.

Mpmm...

necros · October 2003

In the current issue of Car and Driver, there's a comparo of Lux SUVs, with the Infiniti FX45, VW Touareg, Porsche Cayenne and Cadillac SRX going at it.

Guess who wins.

v8lincolnguy · October 2003

Just got that C&D issue, interesting review. Good showing for Cadillac, I think the SRX is going to be a very good seller for them.

akirby · October 2003

They always like the new kid on the block (almost always - they panned the new Malibu). Wait 6 months and see what they say. Sometimes the reviews are like night and day. I guess they get excited about new things just like we do.

OTOH they didn't seem thrilled with the XLR compared to the SL500.

peccles · October 2003

The XLR, SRX and the next STS will have Magnetic
Ride Control shocks. I'm surprised Caddy has not
made it an option for the CTS. Maybe '05 MY?

v8lincolnguy · October 2003

As most people here know, I'm not a big fan of SUVs and while I'd still rather spend my 50K on a CTS-V, I wouldn't mind an SRX at all. Especially if I needed the extra space and utility it affords. I think Cadillac did a very good job with this vehicle and I don't expect the press to change their opinion in a few months.

wwhite2 · October 2003

I still haven't been able to get to the dealer to repair my "stuck at empty gauge" reading . While driving today the gauge shot up to 3/4 tank which would be right . Oh well looks like an intermittent problem . I will have to run the tank down close to empty so it will be easier for them to drop the tank and replace the sender unit

merc1 · October 2003

When I got my copy of C&D and looked at the trucks on the cover I just new either the VW or the Porsche had won. The 5-Best Trucks winner VW was last and the Porsche came in second, with the Caddy winning. Unprecedented for a Cadillac, unprecedented at Car and Driver. CD is fickle as hell though, witness the VW's showing, but I doubt they'll trash the SRX that fast.

M

calley2 · October 2003

I have a Better Business claim in on my 2003 CTS. I complained the very next day I purchased the vehicle about the harsh ride and was told it was the sport suspension. I know what a stiff ride is since I owned a corvette, and Z28 camaro. The car seems to bottom out on certain bumps. The dealer took the spare tire and added sound proffing. Then they replaced the left front strutt. The car rides like it is bottoming out. The head service tech took the car for a ride and said that their was a problem and was not sure of what to do. I took a 2004 for a ride and it was like night and day. The service manager took another 2004 cts for a ride and heard the same noise coming from the drivers side rear under the wheel well. He stated it was the design of the car and their was no fix for it. He wrote on the service report that he heard a clunking noise and he heard the same noise on a 2004. It has been back 3 times for just that. Plus the clock and now the drivers seat does not work. What do you think do I have a case. I am embarrased when someone is riding in the car and we hit a bump.

b4z · October 2003

Start a file with GM.
You need to document everything.
Gm will send a rep down if the dealership can't
resolve it.
maybe you can get them to give you a '04.

bigdaddycoats · October 2003

GM has raised the base price to $31060 including destination.

wwhite2 · October 2003

I have the03 LuxSport version and have never had any signs of the rear suspension bottoming out

Cadillac CTS/CTS-V

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles