2008 Cadillac CTS: Open Thread

Are you guys ever going to reveal who Kissel is on your staff? I'm curious :)

Donna - How does the back seat feel for space when adjusted for a 5'6-5'10 driver? I remember feeling it was surprisingly cramped, but I was at a car show and I don't know what the front seats were adjusted too...

The magnetic damping is superb. Test drove an all wheel drive last year with this damping. Yes....it does hold the road super well without the harshness. Reminded my of the Mercedes and the great suspension they have in their E and above models. Adjusting this damping from the cabin has great possibilities. Three car rides in one sounds like the one Audi has that I haven't sampled yet. I was happily impressed with the CTS I test drove and this suspension technology that is based from the Vette. All I can say is Wow!

This is my first post; I'm a long-time reader, but as an owner (soon-to-be-ex) of a 2008 CTS I felt I had to leave a few of my impressions. First off, I have the 3.6DI AWD with Lux II and sports packages.

This car is, far and away, the best I've owned: it has ample power, the steering and suspension are communicative and provide plenty of feedback without ever feeling harsh, the technology amazes me everytime I use it (adaptive headlights, popup nav, bluetooth, etc), the styling is fantastic even after time, the fit and finish are great - I do have one squeak from the armrest if I put all my weight on it as I get in - and lastly, it's a fun car to drive. I never get in it and feel anything other than excitement about wherever I'm headed: it could be the grocery store, the beach, or some winding back roads.

I've put about 14k miles on my CTS over the past year, had it to its electronically limited top speed (140) and have turned heads and held impromptu races wherever I've gone. My gas mileage isn't anything great: over the 14k miles I've averaged 18.9, but I drive this car the way I feel it was meant to be driven. I am sad to see it go, especially in the name of practicality for my family (two large dogs and two kids), but life does go on.

Thanks to Edmunds for adding this car to their fleet - their early reporting helped a lot in my decision, and I've never once regretted it!

what are you getting as a replacement?

2010 Mazda3 Sport, grand touring w/nav & moonroof packages. Need the extra room afforded by the hatch and can't wait around for the CTS wagon.

Question - who has compared the FE2 to FE3 suspension? I saw the recent post complaining about the FE2, but how rough is the FE3 to deal with for daily driving?

2006vr6, only the CTS-V has Magnetic Ride Control, and it's not available in AWD. Perhaps you drove an STS? Regardless, the non-MRC damping in the CTS is astonishingly good, easily a peer in ride quality with the outgoing E-class but with much better handling (I haven't driven the new E-class yet so I can't say if they've been able to tame the massive body roll that plagued the old E).

texases, for comparison, the FE3 suspension is less harsh than even the non-Sport suspension in the BMW 335i. There is very little difference in feel between FE2 and FE3 except FE3 may jitter slightly more over rough pavement -- impact harshness is virtually nonexistant. If you do any sport driving (and you live somewhere where it doesn't snow often) I'd get FE3 just for the upgraded brakes and the Pilot Sport 2's.

texases, I should qualify that last part, I've actually driven a CTS with FE1 down the Pacific Coast Highway from Carmel to L.A. and I was impressed -- no, make that astonished -- at how well even FE1 handled. I was driving the living daylights out of that car, trying everything I could to see if I could upset the suspension (mid-corner downshifts, braking too late, too much throttle exiting a corner, abrupt L-R transitions, etc etc), and I just couldn't faze it. And that was with the 17" Pilot HX's. So it's really just a question of preference.

Thanks esoterica, I'll be sure to drive the different ones. But at least the FE3 sounds like a good choice, given my interests.

xanders- as an owner of a Mazda3, the room isn't all that great. I assume you've already test drove one but rear seat space is tight. I don't know if they've improved the room cargo space for the '10 model but mine has about 17 cu ft in the hatch which is ample but not huge. Just my two cents and don't look for great fuel economy either- i'm averaging about 16-18 mpg depending on a/c usage(95% real city driving).

I've been researching the CTS for a few months now. Questions I'm itching to get an answer for:

1. Does the CTS have any appreciable "hesitation on takeoff" that I've seen a few comments about the G35/37?

2. I see you can order "PDR/PDQ" sport packages when you "build" the CTS online (via Edmunds or other sites). How does one know whether the FE2 or FE3 is included?

oh, and how are the speakers? average, above-average? thx

I rented a ‘new version’ CTS for almost a week, in Sunny Southern California a year or so ago.

And I test drove a very well equipped 2009 CTS last Fall – before buying my 2009 G8 GT.

I chose the G8 GT largely because it is a far more Sport[y] Sedan than the CTS. Though it seems to be a reasonably successful Luxury Sedan.

While I recognize that they are both 4DR sedans w/RWD,
And that they really are in 2 quite different segments –
IMHO – I did want to give the CTS a “fair shake” before
Choosing me next pirchase.

First big difference is price:
Base \ RWD with 304HP V6 DI starts at $38,860.
Add the UltraView sunroof @ $900
And the Y43 performance package @ $1,490
[ to make the equipment level roughly comparable
to a G8 GT with every package & option ]
results in an MSRP of $42,575.

MSRP of the ‘equivalent’ G8 GT = $35,190.

The CTS lists for over $7,000 more.
Comparing used CTS [ or used anything else
to a new G8 GT seems unfair – but so be it.

Second – dynamics:
Based on my driving, both the rental [ not the DI ]
and the ‘loaded’ ’09 w/DI I test drove last Fall,
my view is that the CTS just is not a
very sporty sedan.

I am not talking here about handling.
Though this is important, and the CTS
does handle competently – better than that,
with the Y43, I expect – the 304 HP DI V6
just is not particularly powerful, and the
6L50 trans calibration in the CTS just is
not aimed [ IMHO ] at performance driving.

The acceleration numbers I recall for the 304HP CTS
run in the mid-14s.
The G8 GT records mid 13-s.
That is a difference most seeking performance
could likely feel.
[ I admit that I am a TQ addict ]

The V6 is certainly ‘sufficient’ – but driving one,
I knew that I would ** REALLY ** miss the G8 GT’s V8,
with deep wells of Torque everywhere, at any RPM –
as well as the much quicker ultimate acceleration.
Some will not care about this aspect.

By far, my biggest disappointment with the CTS’s drivetrain was actually the trans. I had heard \ read much about how great the 6L50 is in the CTS. My Corvette had a 6L80 & the G8 GT has the same designation trans. I drove my ‘Vette & drive my G8 a fair percentage of the time in “S” & manual \ manumatic mode.
2 things about the CTS trans. drove me nuts – to the point that after the first 50 miles or so, I never used that mode again.

Thing 1: In my Corvette, & in the G8 once in a gear ( fourth or fifth or sixth, for example, on the freeway ) it will NOT downshift without a manual request. Ever.
[ At least not exclusively based on throttle position. ]
The CTS will downshift based on throttle position – even in ‘manual’ mode. Often shifting down one or 2 or 3 gears. Weird. And not ‘manual’, by my definition. Not exactly sure what GM is thinking here – though I have experienced something similar in a couple of BMW 3s, with their Steptronic automatic.

Thing 2: If accelerating at ( or close to ) WOT, commands to upshift in the CTS are ignored. Again, my Corvette & G8 will do as told. And again, I have seen this behavior in BMW 3s. Weird.

Both these odd ( to me ) choices in the programming of the CTS automatic are counter-intuitive, to me. And I dislike them both. A lot.

When driven like a luxury car ( the fun portion of my trip, with my Daughter ) the rental CTS was fine. When I tried to drive it like a Sport Sedan – no dice. Would not work, for me.
The 6L50, as installed in the CTS I find just weird.
Very weird.

Again, during the 3 days I spent driving the rental CTS
driving it as a luxury sedan – not a performance car \
sporty sedan, with my daughter in the right seat, it was fine.

I will refrain from comments about the interior –
except to mention that I did not find the CTS seats
particularly comfortable. I find the G8 seats
very comfortable & supportive. The interior ‘styling’
of the CTS is purely a personal opinion area.

Now, one ** CAN ** find a CTS with AWD & NAV – so if that is a deal-breaker, clearly
the CTS is ‘the winner’.

Just my 0.2 gallons worth . . .

And now one could add on the Caddy’s “Plus Column” the fact that the CTS comes from a GM division that appears it will survive long past the demise of Pontiac.
[ sigh ]
- Ray
Very pleased with the G8 GT – is that obvious??

Sure do with I could edit posts here,
for spelling errors, etc.
[ sigh ]
- Ray
10 thumbs today - at least

Chavis:

Thanks for the info; the new 3 should meet my needs for the time being. I was able to get everyone into it without feeling too squeezed, and the car is fun enough to drive that I don't feel numb (like in most of the small SUVs I tried). I know the gas mileage isn't that great, but it was never really a concern of mine with the CTS so it shouldn't be here either.

Thanks again!

DLu, no, no hesitation on takeoff. Also the stability control is nearly perfect, and won't suddenly kill all the power like the stability control in the G35/G37 (which IMO has the most dangerous stability control of any car I've ever driven -- it almost got me t-boned when it cut all the power when I was turning left across traffic).

The Summer Tire Performance Package is the only package that includes FE3 (all-season performance is FE2, and FE3 isn't available with AWD).

The top-shelf audio system is good, but not great. Better than any other Bose system I've heard (G37, E-class, SLK, A4, A6), except maybe the MB CL or the outgoing Cadillac SRX. Better than MB's Harman/Kardon systems I've heard but strangely not as good as the BMW Harman/Kardon systems, and nowhere near as good as Volvo's Dynaudio and Hyundai's Lexicon systems.

rayainsw, regarding the CTS transmission shifting itself in manual mode, I've driven several and none of them have exhibited that behavior (they don't even upshift at redline). Are you sure you had it in Manual rather than just Sport? It has a BMW-style shifter where if you just pull it sideways from the D gate it's just in Sport mode (different mapping, and displays SPORT MODE in instrument cluster for a few seconds) until you actually start shifting it yourself, at which point it won't automatically shift again until you move the shifter back across the gate in to D. Ignoring a command to upshift is also something I've never experienced.

great rental car.

My CTS is identical in both equipment and color to the Edmunds LT car. I can say, without reservation, it has been the best car I have ever owned (well, leased.) My first new Cadillac was the '03 CTS (stick, sport package)--as much as I liked that car, I had numerous problems with it and GM re-purchased it. I was done with GM for a while. From there I went on to a '04 TL (6mt Navi) and then a '07 IS350. To me, the Lexus was the worst. I just never "connected" with the car--and felt like I was driving an appliance. I traded it with less than 8k on the odo.--Which brings me to my CTS..
When I was looking to get out of the Lexus, I drove just about every natural competitor: A4, 335i, G35, C350. For me, the CTS stood out. There was something about it I couldn't quantify. It was bold, looked fresh and had a gorgeous interior. Also, the car appealed to me because I know I wouldn’t see myself coming and going here in Southern California. Thus far, the CTS has been completely trouble free and frankly, awesome. I still get positive comments about the car's styling--but more important I love the way it drives. Yes, I am a 31 year old with a Caddy. Anyone who still thinks Caddies are for old people owes themselves a drive in a CTS.

Yes - I am absolutely certain.
Behaved this way in both the
[ non-DI ] rental & the new '09 w/DI.

"rayainsw, regarding the CTS transmission shifting itself in manual mode, I've driven several and none of them have exhibited that behavior (they don't even upshift at redline). Are you sure you had it in Manual rather than just Sport? It has a BMW-style shifter where if you just pull it sideways from the D gate it's just in Sport mode (different mapping, and displays SPORT MODE in instrument cluster for a few seconds) until you actually start shifting it yourself, at which point it won't automatically shift again until you move the shifter back across the gate in to D. Ignoring a command to upshift is also something I've never experienced."

wow, fast response -- Thanks! The weather's finally warmed up here in New England for a nice test drive. :)

How does the driver's visibility in the CTS compare to other midsize sedans in the market?

rayainsw, I think something must be getting lost in translation between us because working that way in both CTS's you drove doesn't mean it wasn't just in Sport mode (which is made more likely because you said you had BMWs do that too, and they work the same way, Sport != manual, even though it's the same gate).

The CTS isnt known for great visibility. Especially out back where it has massive C pillars and a pillbox rear window. Then again if your mirrors are adjusted correctly its a nonissue for the most part.

And since Donna invited it, I'll chime in with a mini review: if I could have just one new car, it would be the CTS. Period.

I've driven the BMW 760 and MB CL, I've driven Boxsters and the 335i, 535i, 550i, 650i, M45, G35, Acura TL, Volvo S60R, S80 and C70, I've driven the Genesis sedan (V6 and V8) and MB E's, C's, SLK's; the GTI, Audi A4, S4, A6, A8, and TT, the Charger R/T and 300C, and Corvettes and GTOs (along with a laundry list of other vehicles too uninteresting to mention, which includes SUVs/CUVs and everything I've driven by Toyota or Lexus), and for me I've never found a car that had fewer compromises than the CTS. Volvos have better seats and audio systems but they don't handle nearly as well, and turbo lag makes them low-end torque deficient. BMW 3- and 5-series are faster and have slightly better at-the-limit handling but at the expense of ride, controls, and interior (and arguably exterior) attractiveness (and in the case of the 3-series, at the expense of space). The German sedans in size Large feel too big and too much like isolation chambers. The Genesis sedan is an extremely nice car (and feature-for-feature cheaper than the CTS) but "fun-to-drive" doesn't even enter the picture, and while the anonymobile styling is generically attractive (or at the very least inoffensive) it really looks like the only luxury car Hyundai *didn't* rip off is Cadillac. Audis to me are not particularly fun, not particularly fast, not particularly attractive, not well built, not ergonomic... in fact I don't really have anything good to say about Audis except the A5 is gorgeous, and the S4 has possibly the best exhaust note of any car I've ever driven. Boxster? Hell yeah, but only if I can have it along with a more practical car (same goes for any other car with 2 doors). G37? Fun to drive in town, but engine drone and flat seats are fatiguing, and the audio system is terrible. C-class is ugly with a complete joke of an interior and doesn't even handle as well as an Accord or Malibu. New E-class interior is stunning in pictures and may be the first car in its segment to have an interior competitive with the CTS (at least in terms of aesthetics, if not usability), which makes it even more of a shame the exterior is so awful.

No, the CTS is beautiful inside and out (with lots of stunning details from the light pipes in the head- and taillights to the frameless windshield to the laser-brazed seamless roof to the interior LED light pipe ambient lighting and the french stitched dash). It's torquey enough, powerful enough, quiet when cruising but one of the best V6 exhaust notes in the industry when pushed hard. It has an incredible ride/handling balance, is comfortable for 4 people, is RWD, and is one of a handful of cars in its class to get Top Safety Pick from IIHS. Its stability control is one of the best in the industry, its swiveling headlights are terrific (without the disconcerting split-second delay that plagues BMW's swiveling headlights, among others), it's one of a very few cars that are smart enough to automatically lock when you walk away, it has a huge sunroof that helps mitigate my want for a convertible, its infotainment system is the easiest I've ever used and works perfectly with my iPod, it has factory remote start and cooled seats (the combination of which is a Godsend in Phoenix, not to mention GM has sunbelt-grade A/C), and last but by no means least, it has the latest OnStar that lets you send directions to your car from Mapquest. In fact the only significant wishes I have for the CTS are adaptive cruise (and preferably something like Volvo's CitySafety that can mitigate collisions), and a better audio system; the Bose system is not competitive with the best on the market.

Mind you, this is all coming from someone who would never have considered buying any GM vehicle before the prior CTS came out in 2004 (though the prior CTS, while being a genuinely great car to drive, was pretty darn ugly both inside and out).

It's only too bad that for GM's sake they didn't start making their cars this good sooner.

I do know how [M]anual & [S]port modes work -
the same as my G8 and a prior GM 6L80
car - the 2007 Corvette.

"rayainsw, I think something must be getting lost in translation between us because working that way in both CTS's you drove doesn't mean it wasn't just in Sport mode (which is made more likely because you said you had BMWs do that too, and they work the same way, Sport != manual, even though it's the same gate)."

it seems strange that the CTS auto would upshift automatically because that doesnt happen on my car in "M" mode. It will downshift automatically at extremely low speeds so that you are in first gear when starting from a stop.

@chavis10.

16-18 mpg? I see those numbers too with 100% city driving/crawling, but with the 08 Mazdaspeed version. Also, most other owners I've talked to on forums state that with a mix of highway/city, the averages should be closer to 23 ish. So I'd investigate a bit if you're seeing those numbers on a regular 3 version.

Also, have you finished breaking in the engine? Most of us (myself included) noticed an increase in MPG after the first scheduled service.

...

Regarding the CTS, I had a chance to drive a 03 version, and the way the car drove was really really good. I wasn't really sold on the quality of the interior, even though the version I climbed in had been abused and was holding up as expected.

Where I in the market for such a car I'd seriously consider it.

rayainsw - Is it possible that the transmission was reprogrammed for rental use? I could definitely see a rental company wanting to reduce the abuse on that type of car. But if it did it again on your '09 test drive, then who knows?

I drove an 04 3.6L, and it was pretty decent. I wasn't crazy about the all black center stack, but it was still finished pretty well for a 4 year old (at the time) car. The engine had a lot of go, and was really smooth. The seats were amazing and the wheel felt good. Visibility wasn't that great. It felt sporty, but still had a rather relaxed ride for that class sport sedan. I'm glad I got my S-type though. I can see it aging a lot more gracefully.

santia:

I dont know what kind of "city" driving the EPA does but in true city (and I dont mean suburban) driving you will not meet EPA estimates. We used to have a fleet cobalt here and the trip computer showed an average of 19mpg- its rated at 24 in the city. My are ROUTINELY gets 13-14mpg vs an EPA rating of 17mpg. You can expect to get about 10%-15% less than EPA numbers in true city driving. I read lots of comments from people claiming to meet or exceed EPA city numbers but I guarantee you they arent living in NYC, Philly, DC, etc.

"My are" - meant CAR

santia- not to stay off topic but this is my second 3 (first one had 30k on it averaged about 17 for the life of the vehicle). Currently, my '07 has 20k miles and the mileage is pathetic in the city. I filled up yesterday morning at used the air because is was 92 here- trip computer read 15.5mpg when I got home from work. My dad's 3.9L V6 Impala gets the same mileage as both my 3s. Highway mileage is spot on at 29mpg but real city driving nets terrible mileage. I live in Philadelphia- no suburban roads here, just stop signs and lights every few hundred yards or so.

Back on topic, many may have heard me mention I'm thinking of getting a slightly pre-owned CTS in the next 12-18 months (depending on finances because I'm still a fairly recent first time homeowner) so I'm very excited that Edmunds got this car. If GM tanks, I'm sure that will affect resale value which is bad for current owners but good for folks like me who want to pull the trigger. I guess the hardest part will be finding the one I want. I'll take any color but that Ultra Violet purple and I'd prefer the FE2 suspension. I did drive a previous gen CTS but not the current model so I'm anxious to test drive one next year sometime.

PS- I saw my first CTS-V on Friday. The color was Thunder Gray and looked down right menancing. It was parked without the driver so I didn't get to hear the engine in action but it's certainly a unique looking vehicle. The wide fenders are finally done justice with wide tires missing on the regular CTS.

I wonder if the CTS sedan will get the 19"wheel/tire combo that will be offered with the Y43 summer tire/FE3 suspension package for the '10 model? The order guide has this featured for the wagon with the tires being 245/45 19s instead of the current narrow 235/50-18s.

RE: fuel mileage in a Mazda3

The trip computers are notoriously inaccurate when calculating the fuel mileage and should not be trusted. I find, when calculating gas mileage (across multiple tanks over thousands of miles) that mine is constantly 2.8-3.2 miles short of actual mileage. Per my trip computer, I am averaging 25.9 mpg, calc'd over the last 10k miles without a reset. This is fairly evenly mixed city/hwy driving. When calculating manually, I get 28-29.5 mpg range per tankful. It makes me wonder if people getting much lower results are driving their cars like they stole'em.

anyone experience any notable differences in handling, ride characteristics of the AWD vs RWD?

can't help it but chime in -- i have an '04 MZ6 4-cyl auto; driving in Boston with a lead foot gets me 24 - 25 mpg in the winter, better when it warms up. i cannot imagine how the lighter MZ3 gets such bad mileage unless it's driven/kept idling like a Taxi or something ...

That picture reminds me of the high rear end of the Dodge Neon.

DLu, regarding AWD/RWD handling, Edmunds had a post about this a while back -- the RWD version uses a steering rack in front of the rear axle, which for handling feel is generally considered to be superior design to the AWD which due to design constraints has the steering rack behind the front axle. The RWD car also has a 17.4:1 steering ratio for FE1, or a 16.1:1 ratio for FE2 or FE3, while all AWD CTS's have a ratio of 19.1:1. IIRC the AWD car also has a less balanced weight distribution, and like any AWD car it's heavier and has more driveline friction than the RWD, so barring traction-limited RWD starts it's going to be slower as well.

"i cannot imagine how the lighter MZ3 gets such bad mileage unless it's driven/kept idling like a Taxi or something ..."

That is how you get the poor mileage Chavis is talking about. Boston is similar to Philly in terms of tight streets, close intersections and traffic. If you drive EXCLUSIVELY in a city you will not get EPA mileage- ever. My last car was rated at 18mpg city per current EPA standards and I routinely got about 15mpg. The EPA sticker tells you the RANGE of mileage you can expect. On the 3 the range is probably 17-24mpg in the city. For my car its 14-20mpg and I get close to 14.

vq:

Trip computers are typically pretty accurate. Often magazines will reference the trip computer and observed mileage and note any glaring diffferences. If a trip computer tells you a car is averaging 15mpg its highly unlikely that you are averaging 20mpg. Any trip computer that is THAT inaccurate shouldn't be in the car.

Every trip computer that I've had experience with is @2-4% optimistic compared to a manual calculation(distance driven divided by amount of fuel used). In my 5 Series and X3 you can access a service menu which allows you to make small adjustments to the calculations. If the Mazdaspeed 3 has a similar service menu I haven't heard about it- and its trip computer consistently reads 4% high. The accuracy or lack thereof doesn't bother me, as I keep a spreadsheet on each of my vehicles to track costs, component life, fuel economy, and UOA numbers.

VQ & DLu- my last 3 never got more than 235 miles per tank (in the city) and it DID NOT have a trip computer. Do the math- the car has a 14.5 gal tank and I would run it down to until it would accept about 13.5 gal- that's 17.4mpg. If the heat or a/c was one you could drop that figure eveny lower. All mpg reports were done manually on my '05 car. My '07 has a trip computer and the mileage is just bad. My tires are properly inflated and I didn't really get an oppurtunity to drive fast. The poor mileage is a funtion of the tight grid of streets in my city and the fact that Mazda does not emphasize fuel economy in their cars. Even the EPA numbers suck for car. 22/29 is about the same as you get with a 2.7L Toyota Venza. The mileage sucks, plain and simple.

anybody think the ride in the G35/37 is unsettled? i understand a degree of firmness is dialed in for sportiness; but it seems the CTS has a more comfortable (dare i say, BMW-like) balance. roads here in Boston are obviously notoriously riddled with potholes the size of my head, so a more comfortable ride matters to me here more than, say, Memphis where my parents are spoiled by smooth roads and not ever having to worry about salt.

any thoughts on whether the detraction of handling in the AWD CTS significantly reduces its appeal, compared to a G37 that doesn't seem to be affected by the AWD setup? i was pretty excited about the CTS; but the reliability difference (squeaks and rattles in an essentially $50k (MSRP after some pretty basic options that come standard in the G37, such as real leather, Xenons, keyless access, etc) car this early in its life is just disheartening!) and blistering speed of the G37, just cannot be ignored!

DLu:

The G37 is notable cheaper than the CTS, 335i, C350, etc. If you are going for value the G37 is hard to beat. Then again, the CTS is available with great deals now so the gap is smaller. Also, this car is a first year model and CTS owners that post here have not experienced the same issues. It was the same thing with the Aura they had before- the owners of the car that posted here did not experience the same issues as IL.

I think the car should be kept for another year to see how well it holds up.

I'm not completely surprised that some people get below 20 mpg with the Mazda 3. I have an 04 Mazda I4 with auto and normally get somewhere between 17-19 mpg in mostly city driving. For comparison, I normally get around 30-31 mpg during long highway trips.

I've never driven the Infiniti G but as 1487 said, if you want bang for your buck, it's the car to go for. It's fast, looks pretty good and has a user friendly interior (materials notwithstanding). The CTS is priced like a 335i so you aren't getting the most value for your dollar based strictly on MSRP.