2008 Cadillac CTS: How Does It Compare?

I think your 2nd last line probably summed it up.

The G37 is the best "sports" sedan, but the CTS is a better "all around" car for life in the real world.

And for the love of god, WTH was Honda thinking when the created this new TL?

The CTS is definitely the best looking, inside and out. On a pure luxury play, I would place it first. The G37 is definitely the best bang for the buck - it's performance is incredible. I would rank the VW third (nice effort, but needs a better engine and classier interior), and the Acura TL fourth (no manual, styling is pretty bad, can't get past its FWD Accord roots).

Having never driven a CTS for any appreciable length of time (and NONE of the others in your comparo) I can't comment on driving dynamics/performance. All that's left is looks. The Caddy gets an emphatic UGH! From a purely aesthetic perspective, I think the G37 looks the part. A taught, muscular, lean form, with a stance that -- to borrow a cliche -- makes it look in motion while standing still. Of these four, the Infiniti looks most like a sport sedan should. The CC is a distant second; in person the car appears sleek and aerodynamic, but in my opinion is just too low to really have the road presence it should. I'd place the Acura and the Cadillac in a tie for last in the style department. As much as Cadillac's design is lauded, it has always looked wrong to me. This is not a sport sedan, it's a poorly-worked Clovis spearpoint, chiseled out of some slab of Play-dough that's been sitting out in the sun for a week. Here's a note to GM's CTS designers: vertical lines = bad. Horizontal lines = good. Give it some musculature like Ford has done with '10 Mustang and it will be much more attractive.

1. CC
2. CTS
3. (tie) TL, G37
The CC is very sleek, and I like that. I like the CTS's sharp, defined lines as well. The TL is going to take some getting used to. For some reason, I don't think the G37 is very harmonious. I know Infiniti tried to give it some musculature, but it looks blobby and bloated to me.

The CTS will never outhandle a 335 or G37 as it's too large and heavy as well as undertired. If the focus is maximum performance, the G37 is the clear winner. The TL is probably be a good car but the styling to too ugly for me to even consider (if I was in the market). I don't like the busy interior layout or the button rich dash. The old TL was my favorite Honda/Acura product ever but the new one is too far over the edge. The CC seems pointless to me. They made the Passat less space efficient yet jacked up the price? So I have to pay more money to have a car with a smaller volume but a larger exterior footprint? Give me a break. The front overhang on that car is ridiculous as well. Personally, I see the CTS as a bargain 535i/A6 3.2/E350/M35 competitor as opposed to an expensive G37/335/C320 alternative.

The G37 is a better performer but in the real world it wont matter. Infiniti always offers more bang for the buck than top tier luxury brands so you cant beat them on value. The interior of the CTS is simply on another level when compared to the G37. The TL is an OK performer but it doesn't look the part. The interior is busy and the exterior is just odd. Its also lacks fold down seats and has a small trunk for a car that is 196" long. In spite of all the gimmicks it still looks like a slightly upscale Honda. I don't think that car will reverse Acura's sales slide.

The CC is still a VW and makes little sense to me. I am not paying that kind of money for a FWD based VW even if the interior is nice.

1. CTS
2. G37
3. CC
4. TL

the CC was meant to be all about style. sure, there is some performance aspects to it with the V6 engine and the agile feel on twisty roads, but the main focus was to be a CLS-fighter for VW and eventually for Audi as the A7

CC is AWD and looks the best hands down. I also have to judge these cars based on looks only. G37 is second best. Infiniti tried hard to make a handsome G but deviated from the right path somewhere half way through and ended up with a half assed look that's supposed to be sporty. TL just reminds me of the swamp thing. You don't design sports cars that look like that. You just don't do that. CTS is down there with TL. I'll quote Top Gear: "it appears to have been designed by someone who only had a ruler". I totally agree. CTS looks annoying with its fat ass and ridiculous straight lines everywhere.

1.cc
2.g37
3.tl & cts

1 TL
2 G37
3 CC
4 CTS

I love the CTS but i place it on the bottom. Its not that it sucks but its still a great car in the age of superiors. Sadly in that test, the CTS doesn't have the IS350, C350, 9-3, and S60/S80 to smack around.

-Cj

I've always hated those vertical taillights and the overstyled grille on the CTS, but the new TL is truly wretched. So from a styling perspective, I'd probably go:

1) CC
2) G37 (close second)
3) CTS (distant 3rd)
4) TL a.k.a. Pontiac Aztek sedan

Now what would I actually buy out of the 4 - loaded G37 6MT hands down. That car is a hoot to drive! Never driven a CC but if it's not a giant barge like the CTS I might take that second. I would never even consider the new TL. Such a shame, the old one was simple and elegant.

I've driven all four of the cars being compared here, and I like them all. I like the look of the TL, especially in black. It looks like the upscale sports sedan that Bruce Wayne would drive (and definitely NOT like an upscale Honda...at least no more than the CTS looks like an upscale Chevy Malibu). The interior, however, is a mess...way too Honda Accord for me. The seats are awesome, however, with the softest leather of the bunch and bolsters that keep your seat firmly planted. However, I've never been a fan of Honda V6's, and, having driven the new TL, I can say that this one is no different - despite its 300 + hp rating. Soft down low, not a lot of grunt, but comes alive in the upper ranges. I like both.

The CC is gorgeous, inside and out, and its motor is very flexible and muscular...much less "eager puppy who has bark but no bite" like the TL. However, its driving dynamics are subpar, so the engine can't be used to the fullest. Overall, kind of boring once you are behind the wheel.

The CTS is interesting. I kinda like it, kinda don't. Its exterior styling is nice, but the wheels are too small. The interior is very nice, but still evokes a sort of grandpa image for me. Plus, there are more hard plastics than in the other three cars. On the other hand, the engine is great, with typical GM pull down low and, unlike much from GM, a nice mid and upper rev range. Driving dynamics are excellent and, IMO, equal to or better than the G37.

The G37 is my favorite, by far. Beautiful outside, rip-roaring sports car like engine that you can actually 'feel', and dynamics that all the other cars here can't touch. The interior is a step below the CC, but I like its sporty styling better than the CTS and it is much easier to use than the TL's. If Mazda were to build a $40,000 luxury car, this would be it, which is why the G37 is hard to resist. Call it immature, unrefined, unsettled, whatever...I call it an actual CAR.

1) G37 (by far)
2) CC
3) TL
4) CTS

After thinking that I could never justify spending over $30k on a VW (the only VWs worth buying, IMO, are the Rabbit/GTI), I change my mind. I'm not sure who's gonna buy the CC, but they're getting ripped off, especially when the virtually-the-same, equally capable, and equally nice Passat is less expensive.

1) G37 (by far)
2) TL
3) CC
4) CTS

I've only driven the G35, not yet the G37, and not the new TL, CC, or CTS. So my ranking is a "magazine ranking"...

1. Tie, CTS/G37 - Different focuses, but both excel at what they do. The G37 is the luxury sports sedan with the emphasis on sport and not on luxury. The CTS is the luxo sports sedan with the emphasis on luxury....though it can hustle with an FE3 suspension and PS2 tires.

2. VW CC - A truly great design by VW....but possibly the next Phaeton in some ways. I think it'll be an underappreciated gem.

17. The Acura TL - What exactly am I supposed to say about this car? It has the most hideous styling of any modern car I can think of.....unlike, say, a 2002 Subaru WRX which had beauty in it's ugliness, the TL is the ugly girl with no hope. She was designed by a group of "artists", each assigned a seperate panel, without the ability to look at the whole. And then the Grille was spawned and slapped on.

It's pretty bad when DEALERS of a first-model-year car are painting the grille body color to help it blend in.

It's tremendously overweight. It's engine is decent....nothing special. Same with the trans. It's interior took the unique feel and elegance of the previous TL too techno-extremes. It's SH-AWD (they can't even name their AWD system something cool) is the equivalent of a GT-R.....technologically innovative with no point in a car that is NOT destined for a track.

Acura needed to design a TSX with the looks & feel of the last generation, but with a heavy dose of a sport and a few more features. They bungled that terribly.

They needed a new TL with the designed-by-alfa/pinanfarina looks of the last generation but with a upscale and understated interior elegance, a better power offering, and possibly RWD while maintaining it's medium-sized car feel and poise. This is not it.

The RDX was destined for failure on it's design....though it's a good design, it's not a volume seller.

The only star they have is the MDX. How's that going for them?

Joe

I dont see how anyone praising the G37 can call the CTS' interior lacking. The G does NOT have an upscale ambience inside. Yes the nav screen is big but you can now get a virtually identical interior on the Murano, Maxiama and 370Z. Can you imagine Chevy offering the CTS' interior on the Malibu or Camaro? Of course not. The G's interior has plebian looking controls and knobs and a dull monochromatic steering wheel. In the back it has fixed headrests. When you get in the car you can tell where the costs were cut. The G feels like a Nissan inside while the CTS feels like a Cadillac inside. I have no sat in the TL but the pics scream "Honda" to me and I'm not impressed.

I usually try to ignore 1487's biased comments, but I encourage everyone to check out interior pics of the vehicles he mentioned. (Availalbe on edmunds.) See if you agree.

If this were my money:

1. G37 (what a sleeper)
2. CTS (inspired styling, finally something different!)
3. TL (reluctantly)
4. CC (due to mnx costs)

I'd go:

1. CTS - Fantastic styling, exterior and interior, more than enough performance for the daily commute, and the chance to buy American without severe regrets.
2. G37 - Class-leading performance, great price, bland but inoffensive styling inside and out, probably has better reliability and cheaper parts than CC
3. TL/CC - Can't choose between an ugly vehicle with top-notch reliability and an over-priced, somewhat attractive vehicle with awful long-term reliability and maintenance costs.

I don't think I'd call the G37's interior lacking or too Nissan-like. Its pleasant, but not memorable. I also don't understand the styling praise that this car is getting. Maybe its because I've seen so many of them on the road, but it definitely does not grab my attention....neither did the last generation. The coupe is better, but still uninspiring.

The Cadillac, on the other hand, has a unique style that most definitely is not lost in the mix (like the G35/7 is).

1487, that is my main beef with the CTS...its interior looks too much like the Chevy Malibu's:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1097/1321234359_37168dafce_b.jpg

vs.

http://www.cadillacforums.com/cadillac-models/2008-cadillac-cts-interior.jpg

The good news is that both interiors are good looking, so this is probably more of a good thing for Chevy than it is a bad thing for Cadillac. However, I personally would like more distinction between the interior of a $27k car and a $43k car. The TL and G37 are guilty of this as well, and I'm not sure why automakers insist on keeping a recurring theme throughout their brands. The new interior of the Lexus RX (http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/rx350dualscreens.jpg) looks far too much like the interior of a Toyota Venza.

It appears that I'm not alone in this opinion, either...a quick Google search of "Chevy Malibu interior" yields plenty of images of the CTS' interior as well.

sorry.... http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/rx350dualscreens.jpg

zoomzoom22 - the only similarities in the interiors of the Malibu and CTS are the dual dash pods, divided by the sweeping center stack. That's it.

I encourage you to go sit in both cars. The distinction is VERY clear.

While the Malibu's interior is very nice, and best in its class, IMO, it pales in luxury look and feel when compared to the CTS'.

"I usually try to ignore 1487's biased comments, but I encourage everyone to check out interior pics of the vehicles he mentioned. (Availalbe on edmunds.) See if you agree."

Its a matter of opinion so its all about bias. Its not just about pics. Have you been in both cars? I have. The G's interior looks OK in pics but inside its not that luxurious. Same deal with the first gen car. As much flak as the first CTS took for interior design the G was even worse. The G's interior isn't much better than the Altima and its nearly identical to the Maxima inside. The Maxima is a good $6k cheaper so I dont see how that's good for the G. I also find the exterior to be merely acceptable. Not ugly but totally generic Japanese. The TL isnt forgettable but not for good reasons.

The CTS interior and Malibu interior have very little in common. Not design, not components.

zoom,

What Nissan is doing and what GM is doing in terms of interiors is totally different. Nissan is actually adopting a slightly modified version of the G's interior into Nissan products. The Malibu and CTS simply share the dual cockpit theme. That is hardly the same thing. The Murano, Z, Maxima, G37 and EX35 all have similar interiors. Even Nissan's SUVs have adopted the same center stack design generally speaking. If you sit in a Malibu and CTS back to back you will see the difference. The CTS has wood trim and soft touch materials throughout. The Malibu has soft touch trim at the top of the dash but the lower panels are hard plastic. The armrests are also far less plush than the CTS'. Then of course the CTS has stitching on the dash and French stitched seams on the seats.