2008 Cadillac CTS V6 DI: Track Tested (driver approved?)

She's a porker all right. Perhaps that's reason for the relatively leisurely acceleration.

Egad that's one chubby car. Not much of a performer either.

If it wasn't such a fatty it would perform a LOT better, why is it so portly? Is GM cutting the costs somewhere else? Or could it be that they made it out to be so obese for stability and made like a brick feel?

As much as I don't like the new CTS I am going to defend here. 4,005 lbs is not that much considering the car's size. People seem to forget that it is actually almost the exact same size as a BMW 5-Series, Audi A6, and Mercedes-Benz E-Class. When compared in this company it doesn't appear nearly as hefty and the grip numbers seem better, acceleration is still dissapointing though.

By the way, is the 4005 lbs with the driver or without?

wow...I guess I should feel free to stoplight race one in my 06 Civic SI, since I can break a 14.8 quarter mile with my 197 HP :)
 
As I previously suspected, it looks like Caddy did a great marketing trick: offer the journalists a hardcore suspension and tire package to provide outstanding performance in the slalom, skidpad, and braking. Shows how much tires can make a car. (Not that other manufacturers don't do this too, just that their non-sport models tend to perform almost as well).
 
In the past week, I no longer have as much respect for the acceleration of the BMW X5 4.8 or the Caddy CTS DI automatic....both are about what my miserly Civic can muster, which I don't think is all the impressive.
 
Still a fantastic offering by Caddy though, and I'd love to see how the 6-speed manual CTS DI does...
 
Joe

Sans driver and with a full gas tank

It would certainly help to clarify what version of CTS they are driving. I take it this is a rear-wheel-drive FE2 which means it has the entry-level (FE1) brakes. If it was AWD then it would have the larger FE3 brakes. This explains the difference in stopping distance from the prior test.
Also both 3.6L engines have VVT. The base engine has port injection, while the DI engine has higher compression (11.3:1) and still runs on regular gas.
How was the trans shifted: automatic, sport mode, or manual.
Finally, were the acceleration tests done with traction control on or off?
Ron

Also, do you guys fill it up with regular or premium? That could make a slight difference.

wron, you may be able to find more information about this particular CTS in its Long-Term Road Test Introduction article.
 
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=125068

I read the intro article a few times. That's why I had to guess at the exact configuration. The authors/testers either don't know or won't say which brakes this car has. FE3 brakes make a difference, probably the very difference they noted in the test.
Ron

535 is 3660 with a manual and 3703 with an automatic. That's not really the same as 4000 lbs.
 
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2008/5/535iSedan/Features_and_Specs/535iSedanSpecifications.aspx

blueguydotcom, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. When IL tested a 535i (6AT), it weighed in at 3,909 lbs.
 
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=121047/pageId=124629
 
As far as I know, manufacturer-stated curb weights usually do not factor in fuel and the weight of optional equipment and accessories.

Suby,
 
I had no idea you guys aren't using manufacturer stats. :(

No worries, mate. :o)
 
Most people aren't aware of the lengths the vehicle testing staff go to provide all of us with real-world test data.

I'm sure there are a few that couldn't pass it up but it made me laugh picturing someone in a Cadillac even looking over at the little Civic revving next to them. Some people actually have other priorities and sources of enjoyment when they are behind the wheel.
 
You could probably do the same with a 20 year old Suzuki Swift turbo..... Doesn't really mean it is 'better'.

For comparison, the manufacturer curb weight of the
Cadillac CTS 3.6 DI automatic: 3,874 lb
Audi A6 3.2 CVT: 3858 lbs
Lexus GS350 automatic: 3,795 lb
Mercedes-Benz E350 automatic: 3,740 lb
BMW 535i automatic: 3703 lb
Acura TL Type-S automatic: 3,674 lb
Infiniti G35 Journey automatic: 3,508 lb

She's still sexy though

Ron,
 
I believe this CTS is equipped with all-season tires vs. the FE3 equipped w/ summer tires. Those Michelin PS2s are an absolutely amazing tire, and most likely make the difference in stopping performance.
 
I believe the braking differences are primarily a result of that difference. I think the upgraded brakes for the FE3 are primarily worthy of resisting fade (and maybe providing a better pedal feel). But the hunting tires and ABS shudder is most likely the tires not being able to stop as effectively as the PS2s.
 
Joe
 
P.s. I'm not racing Cadillac's and I'm always surprised by who races me in my little 06 civic SI....a 535i automatic recently did....the only way I knew was because he chirped his tires off the line pretty hard, went to 90, and then slowed down. When I caught up to him, he was talking on his cell phone :)
 
But I do find it interesting that these mid-sized sedans are packing 3.5 liters and 300 HP and are producing acceleration times similar to my little 2.0 liter. I'd expect them to be more around a 14.5 quarter mile...
 
Joe

The Cadillac isn't normal weight, everything is a pig!

"Not much of a performer either."
 
Thats contrary to everything written by those who have reviewed the car. BMWs dont perform as we know and love without the sport package. The difference between a regular BMW and sports package equipped model would be about the same. The difference is no magazine would ever test a non sport package BMW sedan or coupe. Stop with the double standards folks. If you want a better ride and lower handling limits you get the FE2 suspension. The car may be softer but its no Camry.
 
Also, the car isnt heavy compared to similarly sized European cars. The smaller C350 is around 3700lbs and the C63 is about 4000lbs. The Infiniti M is also in the same weight class as CTS.

I love how the criteria of what makes a car great changes day by day around here. Some people say numbers aren't everything one day, then say they mean the world the next.
 
An Evo is faster than a 535i- is it better? I thought it was all about the "feel?"
 
Secondly, I find it amazing how anyone is surprised by the weight of the CTS. It's based off one of the most rigid luxury platforms in the business- the Sigma. The CTS is now virtually the same size as the STS so naturally due to increases in crash worthiness and equipment, it's weight has gone up accordingly.
 
Finally, the standard CTS has been engineered with V series provisions built in. I shared this in the past so you folks need to pay attention. V series components can be swapped in with minimal effort and few if any modification.

"If it wasn't such a fatty it would perform a LOT better, why is it so portly? Is GM cutting the costs somewhere else? Or could it be that they made it out to be so obese for stability and made like a brick feel?"
 
In a recent MT a GM engineer explained the CTS is engineered to handle the power of the CTS-V model. The extra rigidity has added mass to the base car but the CTS-V will be more refined and capable than the last model which was apparently not part of the initial product plan. The CTS is probably a few % heavier than most luxury cars in this class.
 
As for acceleration, the lighter E350 gets to 60 in about 6.3 secs, the M35 gets there in aboutu 6.1 secs, the A6 3.2 is closer to 7 secs and the G35 with auto would likely be around 6 secs even though it weighs about 300lbs less. The only car in this size class that is truly much faster is the 535i.

If the manufacturer "recommends" premium fuel, that's what we use, as we did in this case. Also, with automatics, we typically record a baseline run with traction-control on, in default "Drive," and simply mat the throttle from a standstill. After that, the test driver attempts to chip away at that number by using some or all of the following adjustments: Disabling TC, shifting to Sport (if so equipped), spooling up the torque converter prior to launch, and, in some cases, using the manual shift mode if we observe sub-redline upshifts in Sport. In most cases, the best runs are the result of TC shut off, brake-torque for the launch, and Sport (automatic) mode on transmission. This was the quickest combo for this particular CTS.
  
There are always exceptions and anomalies, and they usually wear AMG badging. Some of those launch better with TC on (bi-turbo V12s come to mind). The V8s often require manual shifting because they usually short-shift to 2nd at the first whiff of wheelspin, and with the Black Series, the Manual shift programming is quicker than Sport drive--same with the Lexus IS F.
  
I hope that answers you questions.
  
Chris Walton

I appreciate the added information from Chris and Suby regarding how these tests are conducted. Very interesting stuff. I'm like blueguy, for instance, in that I had no idea you guys weighed the vehicles and didn't just use the manufacturer's data.
 
Is there an article anywhere providing more detail on how tests are run? I don't recall seeing one.

C350: 3615 lbs (percent error: 2.2%)
C63 AMG: 3650 lbs (percent error: 8.75%)
 
G35 0-60: 5.4 seconds (percent error: 10%)
 
By the way, I want to thank Chris and Suby for answer the questions regarding the curb weight and type of fuel used.

there is often a discrepancy between manufacturer's listed weights and what magazines record during testing.

From Inside Line:
 
C350 Manufacturer Curb Weight (lb): 3,498 mfr (3,592 as tested)
 
CTS Manufacturer Curb Weight (lb): 3,874 (3,990 as tested)
 
535i Manufacturer Curb Weight (lb): 3,704 mfr (3,909 as tested)
 
G35 Manufacturer Curb Weight (lb): 3630 (as tested)

However, the manufacturer weights are just fine for comparison, as you can see the magazine tested weights still rank the vehicles in the same order, and about the same weight difference.

ewilfong, I had a feeling your question would be asked when Director of Vehicle Testing, Dan Edmunds, took the time to explain methods in a previous LT road test blog entry comment. So I saved it for an occasion such as this.
 
Behold his explanation in all its glory. :o)
 
Testing methods vary quite a bit and can absolutely have an impact.
   
But it's odd to me that the fastest number is automatically considered the "best" and the most accurate. Slower numbers are therefore "bad" or inaccurate. Rubbish.
   
This prevailing attitude creates incentives for automakes and publications to go to heroic and perhaps questionable measures to get "good" numbers. We are not the hired guns of any carmaker's PR department.
   
Do others test with a full fuel tank? We do. Do they run regular fuel in cars NOT labeled "premium recommended" or "premium required?" We do. Do they keep the third-row seat spare tire and other items in the car? We do. Do they set the tire pressures to the carmaker's recommendation? We do. Do they know the friction coefficient of the asphalt, and if so, is it within the SAE/NHTSA tolerance? We do, and it is. (at most places anyway. Where we don't know the actual coefficient, we avoid asphalt with a too-high coefficient, we never launch on concrete and we never start on the rubber-laden start box at drag strips - an advantage sometimes.)
   
And on the west coast, we always seem to get fully-loaded cars, which are heavier. We do weigh every car in an as-tested configuration, but cannot yet display this data on the site. We're working on that, as it provides useful context for our results.
   
Only a head-to-head race with the same car (an impossibility, I know) under identical conditions can prove who has the "fastest" drivers. That does not exist when flipping between the pages of several magazines and websites.
   
But is that really important? The point of these tests, in my mind, isn't a race between magazines. The point is to tell if car "A" is faster or stops better than car "B". Our methods are designed to be consistent and repeatable enough so our readers can do exactly that. I'm not worried if our numbers aren't the fastest ones published.

Thank you all for those responses.
Much more enlightened now.
And that's a good point about making the chassis ready for a 550hp v8.
Looking forward to the continuing story of the long term experience.
Ron

CTS-V= baddest car I've ever seen from a domestic manufacturer. That thing will eat M5s and E63s for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and then puke 'em out, burn that, and then roll up the ashes and smoke them in a big cigar.

1487 said:
"BMWs dont perform as we know and love without the sport package. The difference between a regular BMW and sports package equipped model would be about the same. The difference is no magazine would ever test a non sport package BMW sedan or coupe"
 
Not true. One of the big magazines this month tested the BMW 335xi (AWD) against the Subaru WRX STi and the Mistu Evo. They picked the BMW as the winner. It is not offered with a sports package in the AWD version.

"It is not offered with a sports package in the AWD version."
 
Yes and no.
 
The sports package is offered in the AWD version but just not the sports suspensions.

So I wonder if you were to switch out the all season tires to a better summer/performance tire and then run the tests and see how big a difference the switch made?

"Not true. One of the big magazines this month tested the BMW 335xi (AWD) against the Subaru WRX STi and the Mistu Evo. They picked the BMW as the winner. It is not offered with a sports package in the AWD version."
 
It is very true. Years back MT tested a regular version of the 540i and its skidpad, braking and slalom performances suffered with the normal suspension and tires.
 
BTW, just because a magazine picked a 335xi over the WRX and EVO without the sports suspension doesnt mean there is no difference in performance between the standard cars and sports package cars. If there is no difference why pay extra for the sports package? Unlike Cadillac the regular versions of BMWs often come with narrower rubber which means the difference between the standard and sports equipped cars would be very significant. CTS has all season rubber without FE3 suspension but the tires are the same width and same aspect ratio.

The very fact that the BMW w/o the sports suspension was picked over the Mitsu and Subaru speaks volumes about the quality of BMW's standard package. Your claim was that BMWs are only great driving cars with the sports suspension.
There is a difference with the sports suspension, it handles even better!

Thanks, Suby!

"Your claim was that BMWs are only great driving cars with the sports suspension.
There is a difference with the sports suspension, it handles even better!"
 
That wasnt my claim at all. I said that there is a handling difference between a BMW with the sports package and one without. The CTS without the Fe3 suspension cannot match the numbers of a CTS so equipped. Same would apply to a BMW. If you cant understand that simple fact I don't know why we are having that discussion. BTW, where did anyone say that the regular CTS can't handle? I believe the point was that it doesnt match the cornering and braking of the car equipped with the FE3 suspension and performance brake package.
 
Since BMWs without the sport package are rarely tested by magazines we really have no idea how much worse a regular BMW would be. You can rest assured that narrower tires and softer suspension will have an effect on skidpad and braking performance.

For those interested in the CTS-V, check out my blog:
http://www.carspace.com/blogs/CTSV/

1487 said:
"Since BMWs without the sport package are rarely tested by magazines we really have no idea how much worse a regular BMW would be. You can rest assured that narrower tires and softer suspension will have an effect on skidpad and braking performance."
 
And I say, again, the BMW 335xi w/o sport package was just picked over the Mitsu Evo and Subaru WRX sti on a recent comparo test.
Draw any conclusions from that as you see fit.

Here's a conclusion- those cars ain't remotely comparable. The 3 series is a sports luxury car who's base price starts north of $30k while the Evo and STi begin their lives as fuel friendly econocars that have been marked up to twice their base prices. Slapping a large turbo and AWD onto an econocar and then jacking up the prices does not change the root of the vehicle. The 3 series sports a superior chassis to either and the refinement of the 3 cannot be duplicated in either car. Don't let the $40k price of the STi fool you, it's essentially the same car underneath as a bargain Impreza with 170hp. If the 335 didn't "beat" the other two I would be concerned.
 
No car has dethroned the 3 according to the press, not even a Lexus, Infiniti or Cadillac so please don't tell me you seriously thought the STi and Evo would come out on top.
 
BTW- I have no beef with the Impreza or Lancer, I like both in their base forms. That said, I'd drive a Prius before I spent full asking price on the Evo or STi.

"Draw any conclusions from that as you see fit."
 
Pro BMW bias.
The officially unofficial bias goes like this:
German - great and BMW greatest of them all
Japan - good, but clearly not German. They can only aspire...
U.S. - only a fool would buy a U.S. car, even if it's made in Australia.
 
Joking....but a grain of truth.

"The 3 series sports a superior chassis to either."
 
Race the E90/E91/E92 chassis on a rally stage and tell me that. :o)

Suby- umm, I don't think a 3 series was designed to race around an off road track. On the road, it's superior.

I don't think it's a good idea to make a generalization like that. A stock JDM Subaru Impreza WRX STI Spec C Type RA can lap the Nürburgring Nordschleife in 7:59.41. Any 3er short of an M3 (read: $) will not lap the 'Ring in under eight minutes.
 
The GD (USDM MY2002-2007) Impreza chassis is also just as safe, if not safer (IIHS Top Pick), than the 3er chassis. The jaws of life can't even cut through its B-pillars.
 
Clearly, the Impreza chassis is inferior on the road. :shrug:

How many Spec Type RA-R's did they make, around 400? That car didn't even have a radio and was full of Subaru performance parts and lowered on a crunchy suspension. It was a track car so put it on the road with some pot holes and tell me which car you'd rather drive. As I've been frequently told, it's not always about the numbers.

I'm not talking about the Type RA-R. Just Type RA. :o) But it doesn't matter since the Impreza is inferior anyway, right?

the 3 is the better car as it should be for thousands more comparably equipped. I read the comparo in automobile mag and the 3 was deemed superior because of refinement. Its a luxuy car and it should be refined. That fact has no bearing on my original point that the sport package makes a BMW a better handling car. I cant understand why anyone would argue otherwise.

Correct, the Impreza is inferior. I guess I just don't see the appeal of $40k economy cars. I don't think I'd ever purchase any 3 series but I certainly would chose it over any souped up brittle riding STi. A WRX makes since in my book as the mark-up isn't too bad and can be rationalized in my brain.