2008 Cadillac CTS: It's OK to Lose to BMW

Good points... BMW tends to be focused on a fairly narrow group of car buyers. If you throw out the image-obsessed douchebags and soccer moms in X5s, I think its fair to say that BMW owners are vastly more interested in performance at (nearly) any trade-off than are owners of any other non exotic brand.

I think you're completely right that Caddy shouldn't try to pick a fight with BMW over a relatively limited market segment. An "Americanized" Benz or Lexus has a much broader appeal than a BMW clone. I have to imagine that it makes more sense for GM to have Cadillac drawing from as big a pool of potential customers as possible.

This post makes zero sense. In essence you are saying that Cadillac should not worry about competing with BMW even though the US auto media has spent the last 20 years or so worshipping BMW products. Say what? Also, the CTS has THREE suspensions. THREE. Do you mean to tell us that the BASE suspension is too firm for a Cadillac? Give me a break.

"I think Cadillac would be better suited to benchmark Mercedes-Benz (or Jaguar) in regards to ride and handling, then spice it up with the type of style that only Cadillac can provide and the German brain could (or would) never create."

The CTS lacks spicy styling? The interior and exterior currently remind you of a C class or 3 series? It looks NOTHING like a German car in any way. How can the CTS get more original?

The "correctly criticized front drive disappointments" of the past had compliant rides and plenty of technology but they were dimissed by the media because of FWD and lack of BMW like sportiness. There was nothing wrong with the FWD Cadillacs outside of having FWD- they were competitive in technology and luxury. In other words, Cadillac is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

"It's okay to lose to BMW"
If I was some young punk who uses the internet to say stuff I'd never say to people's face, I'd say "Because everybody else does" or something similarly stupid.
You nailed it on the head, JRiz. Benzes are intercontinental, coast-to-coast cruisers, Bimmers are for slashing and burning your way to grandma's house or tearing up a racetrack. I admit that I am much more of an ass in my BMW than in my friend's Benz.
But damn, being an ass in the Bimmer is so much fun!

How many customers do you think opt for the FE2 suspension? If you forgo the sportier suspension, wouldn't that put the car more along the line MB in terms of the way it rides?

Stupid post- just stupid. Auto writers never cease to amaze me. At least you were honest enough to say that you are in love with BMWs.

Wow. I thought being car of the week was an honer...

This was actually a very insightful post. It also made me realize that on a subconscious level it is why I have always thought the CTS was kind of a poseur despite the fact that I actually like the car a lot. Cadillac's just aren't supposed to be high-strung all-out performance cars.

" Cadillac doesn't need to handle like a BMW, providing Nurburgring corner-taking on American streets"

This statement is just dumb considering this and the first generation CTS were BOTH developed and tuned on the 'Ring.

It's also curious how other editors at IL or other publications don't tend to share these types of opinions on the car. Anyone who expects the CTS- a 4000 lbs vehicle with much larger dimensions- to be as agile as the 300-500 lbs lighter 3 series simply lacks common sense. The CTS has a wheelbase only .3" shorter than the 5 series and it's heavier. What do you want from the car? If you want a BMW, there are plenty out there for you to choose from.

"Don't get me wrong, the CTS is a nice car that moves the brand in the correct direction away from the correctly criticized front-drive disappointments of Cady's recent past. But putting on ear muffs when enthusiast publications sprout off Bavarian comparisons would do them good."

You just contradicted yourself. First you insinuate that Cadillacs aren't supposed to be sporty in the first place and then critize the older FWD cars (which were very advanced) for not being sporty enough? Which one is it? Does a base E class with 16" rims handle any better than the '04 FWD STS with magnetic ride control? Give me a break man and put down that tired old Car & Driver rhetoric.

I thought that all the Cadillacs from the golden era of American motoring were RWD. So why would they change to FWD and ditch a characteristic that made them desirable? That seems to be the criticism.

Saying FWD isn't sporty is obviously wrong. Any drive in a Mazdaspeed3, Cooper S, or GTI will tell you that.

"If you forgo the sportier suspension, wouldn't that put the car more along the line MB in terms of the way it rides?"

Yes, which is why the post makes no sense. This is why Cadillac offers three suspensions.

Mercedes:

Who is to say how a Cadillac is "supposed" to ride or handle? Cadillacs of old did not handle like current era BMWs because most Americans wanted a supple ride and plenty of power and space in their luxury cars. Times have changed and even Lexus is trying to dial some tactile feel into their cars these days. The non V CTS isnt a "high strung performance car" by any means. Its a normal, RWD luxury car with handling on par with the 5 series or G37 or Infiniti M. It still goes down the road with quiet refinement like most luxury cars. A car that looks nothing like its most vaunted competitors inside and out is not a "poseur" by any means. I used to think this car was popular at IL headquarters but I see I was wrong. Other than Brian Moody I'm not sure who likes the car. The auto magazines are very influential and yet he says Cadillac would be smart to ignore the feedback of those magazines and develop numb luxury cars that emulate MB products. WTF?

"Wow. I thought being car of the week was an honer..."

It is when your an M3 or 370Z. For CTS its a chance for everyone to air all their complaints.

Lose to BMW how exactly? Even the FE3 suspension rides better than a 3-series *without* a sport package, and on the other end of the spectrum, every single review that I've seen has said that the CTS-V rides better than the M5, and we're all aware that the V decimated both the M3 and the M5 around the Nurburgring. So what, exactly, is being given up?

I'll also pile on that it's disingenuous to compare the CTS to the Genesis -- if the CTS was as un-involving to drive in the twisties as the Genesis is you'd be slamming it for that reason as well. As it stands, the CTS, even with FE1, is a total blast to drive on twisty mountain roads. IMO the CTS strikes a better ride/handling compromise than any of its competitors (yes, BMWs handle better, but they ride substantially worse), and gives you 3 suspension options to boot.

I also want to qualify my above statement -- BMW's, generally speaking, *do* handle better than the CTS at the limit but this does not, IMO, make them more fun to drive in most driving situations. In my experience BMWs generally aren't much fun at all to drive unless you are pushing them to their limits (Cf, sgude, "damn, being an ass in a bimmer is so much fun!"), whereas the CTS has a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde personality and is enjoyable in day-to-day driving as well. Let's call it "Miata syndrome."

I like the part where he says a Cadillac is like a guy trying to be cool but cant really fit in. Cadillac is not Acura or Lexus or Hyundai. They have history and they were the #1 luxury brand in the US for 70-80 years until the late 90s. What Cadillac has done over the last 7 years is show that they can design luxury cars with the same ride/handling charateristics as German RWD cars. This doesn't mean they are copying BMW or trying to become BMW. The fact that the CTS is heavier and larger than the 3 and C while costing slightly less proves that Cadillac is going its own way. The CTS is a completely American interpretation of a RWD sports sedan. They know that handling respone is important to many of today's RWD sedan buyers and thus they designed the CTS to handle like a BMW would handle. This has nothing to do with being a fraud or poor imitation of a BMW.

I don't have anything to contribute that hasn't already been said. The above posters are correct. This post is just one more indication of how illogically, irrationally biased against and hateful towards Detroit the automotive media is.

"Wow. I thought being car of the week was an honer..."

Car of the Week means that the featured car is blogged more often than others for that week; it doesn't mean Edmunds is going to falsely misrepresent the car to pander to certain readers...

1487, not only that but perhaps JRiz would do himself a favor by driving the XF and the CTS back-to-back before he suggests Cadillac benchmark Jaguar's ride/handling (I'm not going to even dignify his Mercedes suggestion, anything less than an AMG E-class rolls and plows so much as to be a complete handling joke). Winding Road is the only mag I've seen that has so far put the CTS and the XF up against each other, and they give the CTS the nod for ride, handling, braking, and transmission quality (yes, over the vaunted Jaguar/ZF 6-speed auto), and that's with the AWD that's generally regarded as diminishing the CTS's handling.

http://windingroad.nextautos.com/windingroad/200805/?folio=80

Double negative sorry :(

Another data point: even stuffy Consumer Reports compared the CTS to the 3-series and the C-class (due to pricing, even though as it's been often pointed out the CTS is almost identical in size to the 5-series) and not only rated both the BMW and Mercedes below the CTS, but indicated that both the CTS and the BMW ride AND handle better than the Benz.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/05/i-consumer-reports-i-ranks-cadillac-cts-above-bmw-mercedes/

Man, GM fans are touchy about even the smallest critique these days.

All he's saying is that perhaps Cadillac should consider slightly different benchmarks... or maybe not worry about benchmarks at all and just build the best cars they can.

Nobody is ripping Cadillac, or GM, or American cars in general. Relax.

"Car of the Week means that the featured car is blogged more often than others for that week; it doesn't mean Edmunds is going to falsely misrepresent the car to pander to certain readers..."

Except for the fact that previous cars of the week were largely praised you make perfect sense............

Until recently the CTS was actually getting good reviews, now they can barely find anything positive about the car.

Interesting post. What you're describing, though, is what they intend Buick to be. Cadillac will continue to be performance oriented, for better or worse.

zcalvert:

The critique is illogical and totally contradicts the prevailing opinion of the majority of the automotive press. To say emulating BMW is a mistake when the press has repeated stated BMW is the benchmark borders on lunacy. What part of that don't you understand? That said, who said Cadillac was trying to build BMW clones? Does the CTS look like a BMW to you?

zcalvert: "All he's saying is that perhaps Cadillac should consider slightly different benchmarks..."

Um, no, actually he said exactly "I think Cadillac would be better suited to benchmark Mercedes-Benz (or Jaguar) in regards to ride and handling, then spice it up with the type of style that only Cadillac can provide and the German brain could (or would) never create."

So if it makes me touchy for me to point out that according to everyone else directly compared them, Cadillac has already exceeded these two benchmarks in both ride and handling, then so be it. And I'm not sure what additional "spice" Cadillac can provide over their world-beating interior, and the exterior that, love it or hate it, is more immediately identifiable as its namesake brand than almost anything else on the road.

esoterica- I read that article when it was first published and you beat me to the punch.

Ms Daisy, it's a free country. No one expects IL to write anything to cater to a specific audience. The fact of the matter is that no car handles like a BMW, but a BMW. If that's what these editors like, then they should just have a fleet full of Minis and Bimmers. If your preconceived notion is that BMWs are the only desireable cars for sale, then nothing else will be able to satisfy. For example, Sadlier just said the new M3 is the best car in the world in the latest M3 post (despite the fact that the V spanks it for the same money). Therefore, any car that does not possess the M3's traits will be dismissed. Never mind that it's barely faster than a 335 or that it cost $70k (GT-R money for 335 performance). When you start to digest these biases, you will be begin to understand some of the positions certain posters take.

Another stupid IL post. I had sworn off these guys, but I friend sent me the CTS suspension walk-around, and that was good. But this.....
All JRiz future writing can now be summarized as "BMW = good, everybody else = not as good (Import), bad (domestic)"

er, everyone else *who* directly compared them...

Should have known better than to dare contradict those who feel any negative post about a GM product amounts to "bashing". My reading comprehension is just fine, and I stand by everything I said previously.

zcalvert- I would question you comprehension then. It has nothing to do with being a "GM fan," it's about auto writers not knowing what the hell they are talking about yet trying to speak as authorities on particular matters. The bottom line is this: certain car companies can't win in the press, period. Specifically, the Cadillac DTS is considered laughable because it's an excellent highway cruiser, plush, extremely spacious, has loads of features and a huge trunk. Yet we have someone post this joke of an entry claiming that Cadillac needs to adjust its aim back towards the realm in which it received universal hate. How does that many any ounce of sense to you?

Why does every luxury manufacturer have to compete directly with BMW? If every luxury manufacturer offered BMW like everything wouldnt that be boring?

People need to realize that you have the luxury side, sport side and a lot of area between the 2. BMW obviously is on the sportier side while other brands are scattered throughout the spectrum. Some offer much more luxury (Lexus), some offer a balance of both sport and luxury (Cadillac), and some offer pure sport (BMW).

To be honest I dont view BMW as a luxury manufacturer as the 3 and 5 arent what Id call luxurious. I consider BMW a maker of premium sport vehicles.

Didn't the Caddy lose to the Hyundai because the Hyundai was cushier? Now the Caddy loses to the because the Caddy is cushier.

Got it.

zcalvert, if you actually had "contradicted" anyone it would be one thing, but you really only called everyone here who has perfectly valid points "touchy" and proceeded to put words in JRiz's mouth that weren't there.

The CTS does not ride and handle like a BMW -- and IMO doesn't attempt to ride and handle like a BMW -- and the only reason that it gets compared to a BMW is that it's so good that there's no other lazy way to describe it (seeing how in the past several years "BMW-like" has become the de facto lazy way of bestowing the highest comparative honor on another vehicle).

In fact the CTS feels like nothing else, with steering that's so unbelievably glassy it feels like all the mechanical bits must be magnetically levitated for zero friction getting in the way of road feel, a sublimely-modulated throttle pedal that never feels either jumpy or lazy, a telepathic automatic transmission (remember that the CTS-V not only beat all production sedan records on the Nurburgring by using an automatic, it beat them *in automatic mode*), a suspension that's taut but transmits absolutely zero impact harshness, stability control that only helps and never hinders you, and handling that's sneaky because you can just keep pushing the car harder and harder and and it just keeps asking for more, *way* past the point where you would have otherwise thought that it would stop being friendly. BMW's and Infiniti G's by comparison feel like go-carts.

And I've mentioned this before but I am not a "GM fan" -- I'm a fan of whomever is making the best vehicles at the time (5 years ago GM could have disappeared and I would have only rejoiced at never having to see another Monte Carlo or Aztek again). And I firmly believe that if Cadillac keeps up this caliber of vehicle then pretty soon we'll be talking about vehicles that have this good of a ride/handling compromise as "Cadillac-like."

Keep in mind that journalists want to generate interest in their writing. That's the priority, and they know us all so well. We like controversy, and we like a little irritation!

The Cadillac does its own deal. It is more luxurious than the 3, and more interesting in its styling than both the 3 and the 5. But, there is a performance interest out there, and Cadillac has targeted that interest. BMW happens to be a fav of performance enthusiast, so the camparisons are natural, and make for interesting discussion. Cadillac did a great job, because people naturally make these associations with BMW and its reputation for sport, thereby further demonstrating the new peformance cred of Cadillac.

Personally, I prefer the smaller size of the 3-series, and love how it drives - the engine response and steering feel were great. But, the looks are not inspiring inside or out, and I would really not care to be seen in one. That was a factor for me, so I purchased a G35, which looks more interesting, and actually isn't so refined - and that's a good thing. The G35 feels fast even when you are driving legally, and the Bimmer is sorta too capable and too easy to drive, by comparison. I wonder how the CTS would slot in there. Probably more refined and luxurious than my G35, I'm guessing.

Now, I've only been a passenger in a CTS-V, and that can snap your head back! Super comfy, too, when it isn't trying to press you into the seat.

But the CTS isn't being a poser; it's being a Cadillac: poor squeaky interior is their thing isn't it?

Since when were Cadillacs of the "golden age" cornering-machines like a modern day BMW? They were luxurious, beautiful, comfortable, and stood out. The CTS accomplishes those, but not fully at the expense of trying to be sporty. If Cadillac went the Escalade route and made an ultra-comfortable, ultra-luxurious machine at the cost of some (but not all) of its sportiness, it would win easily against Mercedes and Hyundai alike. As it is, the CTS is a jack of all trades, yet a master of none. The BMW has a spartan interior (for a luxury car, compared to MB and Caddy), and a much diminished luxury factor compared to say, Mercedes, but damn it's fun to drive. Mercedes (other than AMG) handle like crap comparatively, yet are much nicer to sit in. Cadillac needs to go the Mercedes route because they used to be damn good at it.

Also, whoever cited Consumer Reports.. does anyone take CR seriously anymore? From a little while back, I remember CR being criticized for problems with sample size, self-selected samples, and different ratings of the same product when sold under different names. Doesn't totally apply to cars, yet again what does it say about their bias? Also, they're not car professionals. They're the Consumers Union and they're pretty much just regular joes who like to test stuff. The same guys who tests cars also test appliances and cleaning products. Oh, also, on the topic of why American car industry is failing, it's because nobody wants American cars for a reason. Things may be slowly changing, but shame on Ford, GM, and Chrysler letting accountants design cars instead of engineers. Remember Ford's troubles a while back when Ford let it's engineers design a cost effective, reliable, attractive, appealing car? The first Taurus was born. We need more of this, and while the CTS does it, it needs to do what Cadillac does best: cushiness!

1speedbike,
I agree with you on your general sentiment, but I have to disagree with you on one point. Cadillac never built cars like Benzes. "Golden Age" Cadillacs were much more similar to modern-day Lexuses; they were isolation chambers without a hint of performance potential (because that is what most people wanted at the time and American cars were too darn big to perform anyway). Benzes on the other hand have always been strong performance cars with an emphasis on luxury. Benzes don't isolate you from the road, just the imperfections. If Cadillac built an Escalade-esque CTS it would be owned by the C and E alike. Cadillac is better off going the direction it is headed now (rather than trying to go plush), a quick look at CTS sales proves that.

"The CTS is a completely American interpretation of a RWD sports sedan."

1487, you hit the nail on the head. Cadillac needs to be Cadillac and provide unique products not BMW clones. The CTS is a fine car as is, I just hope Cadillac can consistently execute the rest of their product portfolio just as well or better.

I personally think the CTS filled a spot in this segment where no other luxury manufacturer has claimed. Its uniqely American, luxurious, refined yet sporty, composed and tactile enough to gain credit from an enthusiast standpoint. The CTS has proved itself.

In the end it depends on what combination of sport and luxury the consumer desires. The CTS gives the consumer a unique combination. Bravo Cadillac for not diluting the traditional Cadillac luxury characteristics and providing a sporty/techy side we havent really seen before from Cadillac.

I tend to agree with was JR stated in the blog, but I'm getting the feeling that the theme of the blog was completely missed by a bunch of people.

In particular, I agree that the media-forced comparisons with BMW are a bad thing. Its not even that the CTS can or cannot 'beat' BMW, its that it shouldn't even matter. I've always seen the CTS as a different beast and not a 3-series clone. However, the media tends to force this comparison on us, and I think it causes a lot of confusion/animosity.

"In particular, I agree that the media-forced comparisons with BMW are a bad thing."

The only CTS that was developed to specifically target a BMW is the V. Lutz said from the jump that the goal for that car was to "put the M5 on a trailer." That mission was accomplished. So when people claim that the regular CTS is supposed to battle with a 3 series, it baffles my mind. The car is much larger and heavier so that comparison is asinine. Those two cars compete on one level and that is price.

Contrary to what most autowrites may think, there is (was) room in the market for both the CTS and the 3 series. Once they understand that no company besides BMW can produce a 3 series, perhaps they won't continue to burden us with these types of posts/articles. Perhaps BMWs should just be tested independantly with the other bottom feeders to be compared amongst themselves.

" So when people claim that the regular CTS is supposed to battle with a 3 series, it baffles my mind. The car is much larger and heavier so that comparison is asinine. Those two cars compete on one level and that is price.

Contrary to what most autowrites may think, there is (was) room in the market for both the CTS and the 3 series. "

I agree Chavis.

1speedbike, you're confusing criticisms of CR. Self-selected sample sizes have nothing to do with vehicle evaluations, just reliability ratings, and to suggest that "the same guys who test cars also test appliances" is just silly -- do you think CU employs a staff of two or something? Regardless, CR is long past the days where the Camry ruled all, and in fact they fall pretty well in lock step with other automotive reviewers in their judgements of ride/handling qualities (for example just like almost everyone else they slammed the Lexus GS for having a sub-par suspension). And the point remains that they're still the only source that can't be swayed by advertising money (and if you don't believe that bad reviews affect advertising $$, remember that GM pulled all their advertising out of the L.A. Times for months when Dan Neil wrote his scathing critique of the Pontiac G6).

Aforementioned G6 review:

http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?revid=47078&indcriteria=ASSET_TYPE-Affiliate+Review%2CBuying+Guide%2CVehicle+Profile%7CM-_40_%7CD-_7652_%7CY-_2005_%7CresultStructure-combined&makeid=40&modelid=7652&year=2005&myid=&revlogtype=19§ion=reviews&mode=&aff=national

And Neil's CTS review:

http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?revid=52657&indcriteria=ASSET_TYPE-Affiliate+Review%2CBuying+Guide%2CVehicle+Profile%7CM-_8_%7CD-_6128_%7CY-_2008_%7CresultStructure-combined&makeid=8&modelid=6128&year=2008&myid=&revlogtype=19§ion=reviews&mode=&aff=national

"Should have known better than to dare contradict those who feel any negative post about a GM product amounts to "bashing". My reading comprehension is just fine, and I stand by everything I said previously."

Typical of anyone who bristles at any defense of a GM (or any non BMW) product you refuse to acknowledge the basis for the defense. The post is a study in contradictions and makes no sense at all. It has nothing to do with GM fans or anything else. They do nothing but praise BMW 24-7 and then we hear Cadillac is making a mistake for supposedly trying to emulate BMW. This is typical of someone who is trying to find fault with the CTS. They can't accept that the car is a succsessful RWD sports sedan with American styling elements so they are manufacturing nonexistent faults.

"But the CTS isn't being a poser; it's being a Cadillac: poor squeaky interior is their thing isn't it? "

Why do you even post here? Pointless.

"However, the media tends to force this comparison on us, and I think it causes a lot of confusion/animosity. "

Well the media's position is whatever BMW is doing is the "right" way to do something. If Cadillac offers something slightly different it is either called a failure or is accused of trying to ape BMW when they have no business thinking they can do so effectively. Its a no win situation for everyone- except BMW. The G37 faces the same conundrum. No matter how good the car gets the press generally says (OK, maybe its just C&D) it can't match up with the 3 series. C&D said the 328i is superior to the much faster and better performing G35. All of this because there is some vibration through the manual transmission at redline. Its a joke, the G37 for all intensive purposes can do what a 3 series can do for less money.

"Perhaps BMWs should just be tested independantly with the other bottom feeders to be compared amongst themselves."

Thats a novel idea. BMWs are so perfect that they should not even be compared to cars not manufactured by BMW. C&D already said the rest of the automotive world should just give up and start building M3s since the car is perfect. Its better than a GTR, better than a 911, better than everything.

speedbike:

I have major issues with CR in terms of data collection and their definition of "reliability" but MOST of the time their road test reviews are somewhat reasonable. Over the last 3 years or so they have conistently given new GM models above average road test scores and the CTS scored very high in their test. Its not recommended due to "reliability" as is the case with most GM models they test. Why? The squeaks IL is complaining about most likely. Unfortunately CR doesnt differentiate between minor annoyances and major failures that require an immediate dealer visit and thus a car like IL's CTS would be called unreliable even though it has had ZERO mechanical issues.

Esoterica, 1487, et al. :

All I'm saying (and the point I took from the original post) is that perhaps both Cadillac and the media would be best served by worrying less about comparisons with BMWs. BMW aims for a specific market segment, and maybe Cadillac doesn't need to target the exact same segment.

Why you take that so personally as an attack against Cadillac or GM is beyond me. You seem convinced that most or all auto journalists have some inherent anti-Cadillac, pro-BMW bias - I would disagree with that, but I doubt I'd change your minds.

If you're looking for anonymous blog comment wars, I suggest Autoblog... lots of pointless arguing there.

Cadillac doesnt mention BMW specifically with regards to the CTS. WHo said Cadillac is "worrying" about being compared to BMW? As Chavis said, the only time BMW was targeted was when GM developed the V. They specifically wanted to beat the M5 for less money and they did. Cadillac has never said that the CTS primary target was the 3 or 5 series. As Chavis said, the only similarity between the 3 and CTS is price- they look nothing alike, have different types of engines, have different dimensions and different design philosophies. If Cadillac was concerned about copying BMW the new SRX wouldnt be FWD and the Escalade wouldn't even exist.

"You seem convinced that most or all auto journalists have some inherent anti-Cadillac, pro-BMW bias - I would disagree with that, but I doubt I'd change your minds."

If you wanted to change minds you might want to have some sort of support for your claim that the media isnt obsessed with BMW. What sources are you thinking of because you cant be thinking about C&D, MT or IL. The CTS has actually been well received by MT and C&D although C&D clearly believes the CTS is inferior to anything BMW offers. IL seems to consider itself the lone voice of reason when they perceive an American car getting too much praise. They basically said the Aura was getting accolades because the media was rooting for GM, not because the car was actually competitive. They put the Aura in its place and the CTS is next. They like the G8 but at this point its irrelevant since Pontiac is doomed.

zcalvert, I absolutely don't think most journalists have an anti-Cadillac bias, just a significant subset of the journalists here. Cf, Motor Trend COTY, C&D 10 Best two years running, Dan Neil (the only automotive writer to ever win a Pulitzer Prize, link to his CTS review posted above), etc., etc. Would you a) like to cite some source that references Cadillac *actually* targeting BMW with the CTS, rather than just Joe Blow's two-bit pontification? And I dare you to find even one other source that suggests that Cadillac should benchmark Jaguar or Mercedes for their suspensions, or even that Jaguar or Mercedes suspensions are superior in any way.

Though it is charming that you keep failing to see the irony in your "I doubt I'd change your minds" comment when the only opinions you've repeated (verging on ad infinitum at this point) are yours (which, if I'm reading correctly, isn't even based on any personal experience with the CTS) and JRiz's, which is so far in the minority that no one has yet been able to provide even a second example. I have yet to see why the majority of us who believe that the CTS is in many respects a world-beating car are those who should "change [our] minds".

Wow, you people really need to relax.

1.I won't waste your time repeating my original thoughts about the post...
2. I couldn't possibly care less if I change your mind or you disagree with everything I wrote.
3. I haven't said anything negative about the CTS. No, I haven't driven one; and I have no interest in owning one. Frankly, I have no personal opinion about the car or Cadillac whatsoever. It was a simple comment on an opinionated post that you took very, very seriously for some reason. Beyond that, I can't help you.

The irony is overwhelming.

i agree, i find much of your writing ironic as well. happy to provide some entertainment for you.

I'd actually be fascinated to hear what of my writing you find ironic.

Ok, time to end this. I thought this was kind of amusing at first, but you're taking yourself way too seriously. this is a car blog for god's sake, lighten up.

since you're apparently looking for some kind of argument, I'll make it for you: I'm an idiot and am incapable of having rational opionions.

Ok? Have a nice afternoon.

"opinions", sorry for the typo.

Nope, not looking for an argument, just seeing if you were blowing smoke again. Suspicions confirmed. How is it that the ones who refuse to make defensible points are always the ones to demand the conversation be over? And worse, not follow their own demands?

LOL! excellent point esoterica.

James, I really have no idea what the hell you were talking about - sounded kind of more like rambling to me. But regardless, I would much rather have the CTS handle and ride like a BMW than a Genesis or a Mercedes. You just hate American cars, admit it. Which is why you can't say anything nice about them, and when a nice American car like the CTS comes along, you struggle to come up with negative things to say, even if they make little sense, which this article is an example of.