Performance Pudding, Wherein the Proof Is Found

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/roadtest/08.cadillac.cts.di.v6/08.cadillac.cts.act.front.500.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/roadtest/08.cadillac.cts.di.v6/07.cadillac.cts.cc.500.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/roadtest/08.cadillac.cts.di.v6/07.cadillac.cts.det.int.1.500.jpg

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/roadtest/08.cadillac.cts.di.v6/07.cadillac.cts.nav.500.jpg


The mind-blowing infotainment system reminds us that Cadillac was the first to offer an electric starter, a production V8 engine, a tilt/telescoping steering wheel, powered memory seats, auto-dimming high beams and even more. There was a time when people used to say "the Cadillac of Watches" when they were describing a Rolex, or "the Cadillac of Boats" when describing a Chris Craft. It's great to be reminded of those times.

More here:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=122751?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 #10

I've been hearing some nice things about this car. What I love most is all the features of their upgraded audio system. It's the only system in the market I know about that is compatible with pretty much every way I would ever want to play music (but I know nothing about the audio quality).

But I still do not like that angular, hard-lines appearance.

What's "auto-dimming high beams"???? why dim the high beams? isn't the high beam made to be as bright as possible and shoot as far as possible?

Or do they mean auto dipping?... doesn't make much sense either.....

6.5 seconds 0-60 when you've got 304 hp? uhhhhhhh:thumbdn:

6.5 seconds 0-60 when you've got 304 hp? uhhhhhhh:thumbdn:

yea thats really really strange, 3900 lbs tho

6.5 seconds 0-60 when you've got 304 hp? uhhhhhhh:thumbdn:

It's a boat...ah, I mean a Chris Craft.

It's a boat...ah, I mean a Chris Craft.

the GS350 has the same weight almost, same engine power specs and can easily get near the mid 5s in the 0-60

the GS350 has the same weight almost, same engine power specs and can easily get near the mid 5s in the 0-60

Right. So we agree...it's a boat.

...it's still ugly...

and a boat :D

6.5 seconds 0-60 when you've got 304 hp? uhhhhhhh:thumbdn:

The humble ES350 w/272hp does it in 6.2 - 6.4. Better MPG too

What's "auto-dimming high beams"???? why dim the high beams? isn't the high beam made to be as bright as possible and shoot as far as possible?

Or do they mean auto dipping?... doesn't make much sense either.....

Maybe it auto-dims the high beams for 'dim' drivers who leave them on when headlights are coming TOWARD the car. :p

Edmunds has also mentioned there is a torque deficiency between the all-important rev range of 3000 - 4000 RPM. That added with the porky weight of the CTS is what makes it's straight line speed so average for the class.

The humble ES350 w/272hp does it in 6.2 - 6.4. Better MPG too

Yes, but this car runs on regular fuel, not premium. And the ES is not exactly the best handling car in the world.

Secondly, did anyone read the article? There was this paragraph about tires. GM's factory times are usually conservative and their time (with different tires) was 5.9s

When I test drove one the lack of power was about the most disappointing thing I noticed. Most everything else about the vehicle blew me away.

Consider, however, that magazine times vary. It's possible that this is among the slower published times we'll encounter for this car.

On the flip side I think we can be fairly certain that the CTS-V will move like stink with the 500 to 600hp it will come with.

I have yet to hear anybody who has actually driven the new CTS, be critical of it. All of the critics I hear are arm-chair critics who just assume it's not a good car since it's a Cadillac and they have preformed judgments about Cadillac ingrained in their mind.

If it's 1 second slower to 60 than the GS350... no big deal. It's rare that a car is better than its competitors in every single regard. The CTS is a heck of a value for the money, though, that's for sure.

yea thats really really strange, 3900 lbs tho

no 4000lbs that's w/o the panaramic roof.

Right. So we agree...it's a boat.

the engine torque curve isnt broad and/or the gearing is that good on the transmission which gives it a slower time

I've been hearing some nice things about this car. What I love most is all the features of their upgraded audio system. It's the only system in the market I know about that is compatible with pretty much every way I would ever want to play music (but I know nothing about the audio quality).

But I still do not like that angular, hard-lines appearance.

I just did a review of two CTS DI models. The stereo is definitely one of he better ones. It is not quite the insanely good Mark Levinson unit in the new LS460, but compared to the average stereo in the average car, it is a serious upgrade. I don't think you won't have any complaints.

What's "auto-dimming high beams"???? why dim the high beams? isn't the high beam made to be as bright as possible and shoot as far as possible?

Or do they mean auto dipping?... doesn't make much sense either.....

"Auto-Dimming" means a feature that is supposed to detect oncoming headlights from a car coming towards you and automatically dims YOUR headlights as a courtesy. It has never really been a foolproof feature, as there are many things that are not headlights can fool it. Newer ones work with more reliable sensors.....the old ones that I remember back from the 60's with the primitive optical sensors and the big, bullet-shaped plastic housings sticking up from the middle of the dash were quite cantankerous and often didn't work at all.

It's a boat...ah, I mean a Chris Craft.

Some of you guys need to rethink your definitions of what a boat is. This is NOT a DTS or Town Car by any means. 6.5 seconds to 60 MPH is plenty quick. When I first drove a turbo Mitsubishi Eclipse in 1995, that was just about what manual-transmission, FWD GS-T models were running....and they were considered fast. The new CTS also handles quite well for an almost 2-ton car, especially with the Sport Package and FE2/FE3 suspensions. If it's Lotus Elise handling you want, just try shoehorning yourself into an Elise.....I have.

mmarshall, you're absolutley correct. I drove the last CTS and aside from the cheap looking interior, it was a great car to drive. I cannot wait to drive the new CTS. Every review that put the previous car in middling ground seems to think this car is a huge jump forward, including you. I love the new more agressive look and anticipate driving the new DI engine. Especially on regular fuel... kind of getting tired with premium fuel prices.

mmarshall, you're absolutley correct. I drove the last CTS and aside from the cheap looking interior, it was a great car to drive. I cannot wait to drive the new CTS. Every review that put the previous car in middling ground seems to think this car is a huge jump forward, including you. I love the new more agressive look and anticipate driving the new DI engine. Especially on regular fuel... kind of getting tired with premium fuel prices.

The new CTS will be a winner for GM and Cadillac. It will help Caddy get younger buyers into the brand.

buy gm stock

The humble ES350 w/272hp does it in 6.2 - 6.4. Better MPG too

The GS350 does it in 5.7 and gets better gas mileage than the ES. Gotta love DI.

The humble ES350 w/272hp does it in 6.2 - 6.4. Better MPG too

Well, Road and Track ran the CTS to 60 in 5.8 seconds

If you're going to compare Edmunds test results on the CTS - compare them to the Edmunds test results on the ES350

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=109687/pageNumber=4

0 - 60 (sec): 7.1

1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.2 @ 94.6


Compare apples to apples please. Comparing the most idealist published times of your favorite car to the worst published times of the car you like less is not very fair. Magazine racing is kinda stupid anyway.

Well, Road and Track ran the CTS to 60 in 5.8 seconds

If you're going to compare Edmunds test results on the CTS - compare them to the Edmunds test results on the ES350

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=109687/pageNumber=4

0 - 60 (sec): 7.1

1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.2 @ 94.6


Compare apples to apples please. Comparing the most idealist published times of your favorite car to the worst published times of the car you like less is not very fair. Magazine racing is kinda stupid anyway.

Good point. C&D did the DI CTS @ 5.8 vs. 6.2 for ES.

A better comparison for a variety of reasons, would be the non-DI CTS and ES.

Car mag tests might not be the final word, but A LOT of new car shoppers do refer to them.

In any case, both forms of the new Caddy CTS will be a success.

good luck getting 6000 miles out of it before you need to replace the differential, and then again at 12,000 miles, and again at 18,000 miles.

This isn't a Lexus as far as keeping it out of the shop.

Then when your warranty runs out it will cost you $4000 to keep having the differntial replaced.

good luck getting 6000 miles out of it before you need to replace the differential, and then again at 12,000 miles, and again at 18,000 miles.

This isn't a Lexus as far as keeping it out of the shop.

Then when your warranty runs out it will cost you $4000 to keep having the differntial replaced.

You mean like all the Lexus ES350s that can't seem to leave the shop for transmission problems?

What you stated may have been true 10-20 years ago. Repeating the same old (totally false) mantras in 2007 just shows that some of you have some catching up to do in terms of dumping false perceptions.

good luck getting 6000 miles out of it before you need to replace the differential, and then again at 12,000 miles, and again at 18,000 miles.

This isn't a Lexus as far as keeping it out of the shop.

Then when your warranty runs out it will cost you $4000 to keep having the differntial replaced.

Ive never heard of the cts having major problems with thier differentials. Could you post a link that supports this?

Good point. C&D did the DI CTS @ 5.8 vs. 6.2 for ES.

The DI engine will give you a healthy shove back in your seat, but not below about 3000 RPM or so, where the torque curve starts to get some spunk. It is not like the traditional American muscle-car low-RPM stump-pulling V8.

Ive never heard of the cts having major problems with thier differentials. Could you post a link that supports this?

Mostly on older models and with the CTS-V.

http://reardiff.jon04ctsv.com/

You mean like all the Lexus ES350s that can't seem to leave the shop for transmission problems?

What you stated may have been true 10-20 years ago. Repeating the same old (totally false) mantras in 2007 just shows that some of you have some catching up to do in terms of dumping false perceptions.

Yeah, the vast MINORITY of them. The ES has REMAINED the highest quality car in class since the ES 350 debuted. Its sad some owners have issues but clearly the majority are fine.


And IMO, its ridiculous to compare 1 or 2 years of some issues to a REPUTATION of having issues.

6.5 seconds 0-60 when you've got 304 hp? uhhhhhhh:thumbdn:

I may be mistaken but I believe a forum member of mine got a 5.9 0-60 stock... Still not the most impressive number but you have to remember, it's only a V6...

No kidding. There will always be braindead people who can't deal with the competition being competitive! I drown GM forums singling out all the idiots who have no respect for the Lexus brand because it's really "Toyota". Well, same goes here. The new CTS is a winner and you can bet money the new CTS-V is going to leave the IS-F in the dust...

Cadillac has a whole bunch of crappy cars - but the new CTS isn't one of them. Deal with it.

Well, Road and Track ran the CTS to 60 in 5.8 seconds

If you're going to compare Edmunds test results on the CTS - compare them to the Edmunds test results on the ES350

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=109687/pageNumber=4

0 - 60 (sec): 7.1

1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.2 @ 94.6


Compare apples to apples please. Comparing the most idealist published times of your favorite car to the worst published times of the car you like less is not very fair. Magazine racing is kinda stupid anyway.

The CTS-V was Cadillac's first attempt at a true luxury sport car. So they had some problems. Do you expect the IS-F to be God's gift to luxury sports car drivers? Hopefully Lexus learned from Cadillacs mistake. Believe me, Cadillac isn't stupid. There aren't going to be rear differential problems with the new CTS-V.

good luck getting 6000 miles out of it before you need to replace the differential, and then again at 12,000 miles, and again at 18,000 miles.

This isn't a Lexus as far as keeping it out of the shop.

Then when your warranty runs out it will cost you $4000 to keep having the differntial replaced.

Do a search on www.cadillacforums.com - you'll probably find over 100 discussions about the bad rear ends..

Ive never heard of the cts having major problems with thier differentials. Could you post a link that supports this?

That reputation you're speaking of is quickly becoming a very old reputation...

Yeah, the vast MINORITY of them. The ES has REMAINED the highest quality car in class since the ES 350 debuted. Its sad some owners have issues but clearly the majority are fine.


And IMO, its ridiculous to compare 1 or 2 years of some issues to a REPUTATION of having issues.

Maybe the CTS is going to be a good car after all, but I still wouldn't buy it because its a bit ......ugly.

Believe it or not, there are people who think most Lexus' are ugly (I'm certainly not one of them). To most people, the CTS is a tremendous head turner (in a good way).