Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
Your car will be ready for 2005, which probably means about a year from now.
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.
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." :>)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
If you have something you want to hide, put it in the owner's manual. Apparently nobody reads them anymore.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you and automole on the 245/40/18. Anything bigger than that and you're going for show, not go.
Yawn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
When it snows here in Ma . The CTS stays in the garage and I take the truck.
There is also romoured to be a smaller Caddy in the works for the smaller European and Asian Streets.
Mpmm...
Guess who wins.
OTOH they didn't seem thrilled with the XLR compared to the SL500.
Ride Control shocks. I'm surprised Caddy has not
made it an option for the CTS. Maybe '05 MY?
M
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.