2008 Cadillac CTS V6 DI: Joplin, MO to Detroit, MI

every light comes on when you start the car.

That is pretty lousy fuel economy. My Thanksgiving road trip in my 335i 6MT netted an average speed of 61 mph (I hit traffic and RTT re-routed me off some freeways to avoid it) and I averaged 29.4 mpg.

On a side note, I finally saw a real benefit to real-time traffic info with dynamic nav routing. A friend of mine traveling to the same destination on Thanksgiving left 15 minutes before me, and her starting point was about 20 minutes closer to our destination. She stayed on the clogged NorCal freeways while I followed the nav's instructions around the congestion, at one point on a beautiful winding backroad to avoid the wretched 580/680 interchange (Niles Canyon towards Livermore). I beat her to our destination by just over an hour!

bimmerjay,

sounds like fun. (;

haha, your passing technique sounds quite similar to the "jersey push" maneuver... except it sounds like polite midwesterners don't need quite the same level of commitment that is needed in jersey. i'm sure other east coast people will understand - one of the few redeeming fun parts of trips into new jersey.

Midwestern drivers sound great. In California, only 10% of leftlane campers will even realize someone is behind them. 5% or less will actually do something about it, like moving over.

I love the pictures. This has been a fun road trip to follow.

bimmerjay, the CTS is probably more comparable to the 5 series. The fuel economy is still a bit low, but the size makes it more understandable. I can't wait for the Alpha series to come out.

Nice post. Any car getting over 20mpg is good enough for me.

great post, great pictures.

i don't get the truck picture.

ace47,

come on man, you're not actually going soft on IL staff now are you?! I mean where did your rage go? =)

on a side note, all that fuss about <24 mpg, poor initial build quality (I have proof), and starting price at more than 38K just tells you this is a bad car to buy. I mean g37 is faster, more fuel efficient, AND 4 to 5 grand cheaper! No wonder I see about 30 g35/37s per 1 cts on the streets.

To "ctpax":

Where is your proof of this poor initial build quality? I test drove the CTV twice, and almost bought it (until I saw an A5)and everything was great. It has a top-notch Navigation Interface, good quality leather, and a very good engine? Where are these faults you have found. I'm curious.

Thanks

"i don't get the truck picture."

look at the direction the other cars are going in both lanes.

"more fuel efficient"
the G37 is only rated 1 mpg better for city driving and the same for highway. Although I'm sure someone here has one or knows someone who has one or knows someone who knows someone who has one that gets 80 mpg on the highway.

"AND 4 to 5 grand cheaper!"
lets hope they are able to fix the contracts with the UAW so the cars can be more competitive. Because the CTS is marked down about $4,500 right now with their red tag pricing. Maybe if they can get their expenses under control they could sell it for that price everyday and still afford to pay everyone.

tmanz, are you upset that people with actual experience driving competitor cars get far better freeway mileage? Do you think everybody is lying?

I just find it entertaining that I have yet to see any car that Edmunds tests matching or exceeding the rated hwy mpg. And yet every time they post anything about their mileage so many people chime in with how the car they are reporting on is terrible because of the mileage that Edumunds is getting. And finish it up with numbers on their car that far exceed the rated mpg. Yet if you check at fueleconomy.gov a lot of people report getting mileage that is better than the rated on the highway driving, even on the cars Edmunds tests.

The one constant is that the same people are driving these cars in often the same area. If you want to compare your cars mpg to the one Edmunds is testing then give them the keys to your car for a couple of months.

The numbers that Edmunds reports seem to be taken as solid numbers that everyone would get in the car while the unusually high numbers that one person is able to get an a competing car are given to us as what that car would get with anyone behind the wheel.

I think some people exagerate their mpg numbers, calculate them wrong, or just guess wrong. I've known people in person who claim one thing and then when pressed or asked more about it start moving the numbers back. I'm sure some people get the numbers they are reporting but mostly I just don't care what one individual gets with their driving style.

I'm saying that they are useless comparisons. Different driving styles, different driving situations, pretty much different everything. Just look at the differences between the best tank and worst tank reports that Edmunds gives us every so often.

for example the touted G35's rating from 3 drivers at fueleconomy.gov topped out at 20 mpg with 80 highway driving:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?column=1&id=24855
how is that better?

By ctpax

"ace47,

come on man, you're not actually going soft on IL staff now are you?! I mean where did your rage go? =) "

Iam just happy they didn't mention the ride quality and the navigation. And I do agree with you that a G37 is better. I don't really mind the mileage as long as a car is fast around a track and in this instance, I agree that the G37 is a better choice. Better mileage is a bonus.

tmanz- EPA rating of the G37 is only 1mpg better than the CTS, but the CTS has direct injection and less horsepower so I can understand the mileage issues some people have. And ILs mileage does always seem low.

eg. ILs STI seems to get around 17to18 mpg. By comparison, EVO gets over 23mpg with enthusiastic driving and Pistonheads reported 22mpg with hard driving and around 27mpg with normal driving. One could say it was because of different fuels but EVOs EVOX is getting similiar mileage to IL so thats not the case. In fact ILs EVO X is the only car getting similiar mileage to other test EVO Xs. Even if these guys shift like morons (not saying they are morons), never exploiting the torque range, accelerating and slowing without particular reason and all that, the mpg rating is rather noticeable.

"on a side note, all that fuss about <24 mpg, poor initial build quality (I have proof), and starting price at more than 38K just tells you this is a bad car to buy. I mean g37 is faster, more fuel efficient, AND 4 to 5 grand cheaper! No wonder I see about 30 g35/37s per 1 cts on the streets."

The CTS has been outselling the G since it went on sale last year.

Comparing IL's mileage to anecdotal mileage is pointless. Everytime they mention their mileage we get 10 posts from people who say "thats terrible, I routinely get 35mpg at 90mph in my 300hp car". Whatever. Bottom line is you have to compare EPA mileage since that is calculated with some sort of logic. If I'm not mistaken the 335i gets 26mpg on the highway just like the CTS even though its about 300lbs lighter. Not impressed. The E350 weighs less than the CTS and manages 24mpg on the highway on premium with a 7 speed and less hp. You are NOT going to get 30mpg on the highway with any 300+ hp sedan that weighs two tons. Not even Toyota can pull that off.

23.5 mpg with an average speed of 70 mph does indeed suck. Must be that blocky front end...

How exactly do you "let them know you're there"? Flash? Honk? Kiss his bumper?

I thought the mileage was decent for such a large, powerful car.

Nice pics and great details and stories from the trip. Blogs like this are entertaining and much appreciated.

"The CTS has been outselling the G since it went on sale last year. "

Oh really? I find it hardly believable.

Did that rest stop smell bad? The only one I know of along your route with an all-in-one like that has a godawful smell, thanks to no air circulation.

"Oh really? I find it hardly believable."

There is always a catch in what 1487 said...

I am sure he meant that the CTS has been outselling the G "sedan" since it went on sale last year, that I find it believable. However, since Infiniti doesn't break down the G sales like BMW doesn't for the 3er, it's hard to confim that statement.

btw, nobody here is claiming they're getting 30+ mpg in their cars. Yet everybody agrees that 23.5mpg @ 70mph is very poor, even for a sedan like cts. And yes, cars in cts' class should and do get 3-4 mpg more on highway.

If he was averaging 70mph, his usual cruising speed was probably more like 80 or 90. I did achieve around 23-24 mpg in my E46 M3 on a road trip, doing 80-90 most of the way and with the A/C on!

"Oh really? I find it hardly believable."

Check out the numbers for yourself. The CTS has averaged 4-5k sales a month since it came out. The G sedan is typically in the 3k-4k range. In some months the CTS has outsold both. Just because its Japanese doesnt mean its a best seller. Infiniti doesnt even crack 10k units a month on occasion.

"There is always a catch in what 1487 said..."

Not really. And you are wrong, Nissan does break out coupe and sedan sales in their reports.

"If he was averaging 70mph, his usual cruising speed was probably more like 80 or 90."

This doesn't make sense. Could you explain how you came to this conclusion?

The G sedan sold 3495 units last month and 41,040 for the year (-17%). The coupe sold 962 last month and 18159 for the year.

CTS sold 2902 (down big time from 2007) last month and 54,398 for the year. For the year the G has outsold the CTS including the coupe by a few thousand units but there were months when the CTS was well over 6k units before the credit crisis hit and that exceeded total G sales. One thing is for sure the CTS is outselling the sedan by a decent margin. Its also outselling the TL and IS.

1487,

just put a link to the site where you got that information - it will clear out all doubts.

People- if he averaged 70 mph, crusing speed was easily in the low to mid 80s. Average speed includes EVERYTHING the car experiences once you reset to computer. I've taken two road trips this year- one was ~ 2000 miles and the other around 1400. My average speed was around 68.5mph but during open highway stretches I traveled 80-85mph. That average speed included stop and go city driving as well as heavy highway traffic in Atlanta (a traffic nightmare). My 156hp 4 cylinder Mazda3 averaged 29mpg on both trips and only weighs 3000lbs. Daniel averaged 23.5mpg in a 1000lbs heavier 304hp car while maintaining a higher average speed so, do the math.

http://nissannews.com/newsrelease.do?mid=1&id=642

Note: before you accuse me of making up numbers I will tell you its necessary to click on the PDF attachment to get the full nissan breakdown.

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=50747

Learn to use google. I already knew the sites but if you did not you could have found them.

Just because people who don't know claim "there is a catch" when I say something doesn't mean it's true.

"Average speed includes EVERYTHING the car experiences once you reset to computer"

Including all the stops and starts to take pictures in front of anything and everything along the way :)

at the risk of getting wayyy off topic: chavis10, how was the Mazda3's ride on the long trips? Road noise?

Fair enough. Hooray for cts. Note, however, that I never accused you of making up numbers, or anything at all for that matter.

24 mpg doesn't sound that bad to me. I only get about 26 out of my 177 hp 4-cyl Forester at similar speeds.

My '96 V8 Taurus SHO only got in the mid 20's.

It seems to me that people have some unrealistic expectations from a fairly large (by today's standards) 300+hp sedan.

Thanks Chavis for clearing up avg speed. Here is a more hands-on example, to put a nail in the coffin. Say the road trip consisted of 80% freeway driving at 85mph, 15% city driving at 20 mph, and 5% idling while stopped. The weighted average would be the sum of the percentages times their speeds, or (.80 x 80) + (.15 x 20) + (.05 x 0) = 71 mph average speed.

Who cares if the CTS sells more. The G37 will wipe the floor with it. And thats a fact. The G37 also looks better.

"The G37 also looks better."

Subjective. I, for one, think the G's are awful inside and out. The CTS has class.

"Who cares if the CTS sells more. The G37 will wipe the floor with it. And thats a fact. The G37 also looks better."

well that settles it. ACE has spoken. The G37 is faster so its obviously better. By that logic Camaro SS will wipe the floor with the G37 coupe so it must be better. As with most biased people ACE doesnt believe in sales figures unless they show an import vehicle at the top of the charts.

Looks are subjective as well all know and I think the CTS looks more distinctive inside and out. The G actually has a pretty generic shape and I don't like the rear end.

m_thrizzle- exactly. I usually try to drive at night when taking long road trips as it minimizes traffic congestion and maximizes mpg and cruise control usage. I frequently drive to Baltimore which is about 90 miles away and can average up tp 34mpg if I drive at a constant 62-65 mph (dangerous on I-95 during the day. Average speed seems to be around 75!!). Once I get up to around 70-75mph, it drops down to 27-29mpg (with A/C OFF).

tmanz- if you find road noise irritating, the 3 will wreck your nerves!! In fairness, depends on the quality of the road surface. You'll love the connected feel on newer smooth roads but the bad ones will bring out the worst of the chassis. Zoom Zoom will turn into Boom Boom.

The G37 is a great car for the price but it's a little boring looking. A typical extruded taffy Japanese shape with not much flare. I see Nissan improved the mileage with the new VVEL 3.7L V6 in tandem with the 7 spd automatic so that's a bonus. I do like the look of the interior but it can't hold a candle to the CTS in terms of ambience or feel. That said, I'd take it over the 335i sedan anyday do to the value and raw performance but the CTS is more a fit for my character. Can't wait till 2010 and hopefully I'll have one of my own.

PS- I do however love the G37 coupe except for the stupid chrome strip on the rear decklid that makes zero sense. Also, the trunk is ridiculously small, even for a coupe.

You guys are really splitting hairs with the fuel economy comments. 1 or 2 MPG really doesn't make much difference. Here are some simple examples:

A CTS averaging 24 MPG, driven over 12,000 miles in a year, at $3.00/gallon would cost $1,500.

A G37 averaging 25 MPG, driven over 12,000 miles in a year at $3.00/gallon would cost $1,440.

So you would save $60 a year in fuel with the G37. WHO CARES!!! Are you going to base your purchase decision of a $40k+ automobile on $60 difference annual fuel cost?

Even bimmerjay's 335i at 29 MPG, would cost $1,214 a year, for $286 per year savings. Are you guys that poor that $286 per year in fuel is going to destroy your budget? That's not even half of a monthly car payment on a $40k+ car.

ace47 - go work for Nissan. They would love to have you. I mean come on, could you at least try to be a little less biased?

singray,

YOu forgot that the CTS can run on regular without a problem. That will save you at least $.30 a gallon which probably means you wont save anything by having a G37. In fact, using your example above the CTS would be cheaper if we assume regular was $2.70/gal.

Its definitely not a big deal. Thats what cracks me up when all these politicians and pundits go on and on about how american cars are lacking in efficiency compared to imports. If you go class by class you dont find more than 1-2mpg separating most similar models. Missing out on 2mpg isnt going to break the bank, especially if the car with lower mileage has lower initial and operating costs.