2009 Cadillac CTS DI: Detroit > Seoul (in this case)

You have to crank up the stereo to drown out the squeaks? Youkiddingme? This thing cost HOW much???

A new engine, unless it's a Wankel-type rotary or a racing engine meant to be disassembled every few thousand miles, should not burn oil. My '99 Civic with 142k on it still burns no oil between changes.

It uses 1/2 qt in 9000 miles and that's "drinking oil"? Good grief!

All engines use some oil. It's only an issue if the amount starts increasing.

We added oil at 6647, 9075, and 23,411 miles, plus an oil change at 14,888 miles. (That's what has been been recorded in the blogs.)

I added at 9075 miles and it would have taken the whole quart.

"It uses 1/2 qt in 9000 miles and that's "drinking oil"? Good grief!"

Never had to add oil in between changes for my car. I use Mobile1 too.

SnakeDoctor

Sorry, I was just going by the linked post. Didn't have time then to read through all the posts.

It's still nothing to be concerned about. Compared to the gallons of gas a car uses, a few quarts of oil is meaningless.

So the Genesis is more Lexus while the CTS is more BMW. No revelation there...

Oil consumption? Not any more. Went 9075 to 14,888 (assuming it might have needed an quart), 5,813 miles; 14,888 to 23,111=8,223 miles (!). Average over 7,000 miles/quart? Not 'drinking' to me...

I agree with the Snake Doctor here. Even though I have never been a huge fan of the CTS' looks, at least it is instantly recognizable. The Gensis, as good of a car as it is, is the Toyota Camry of luxury cars. It could easily be a dozen different cars depending on what angle you gaze upon it.

My take : CTS is ugly.

^^ Your take also happens to be correct.

No one in their right mind would compare a CTS to a 750. The Genesis at least represents value.

Unfortunately, the CTS is another underappreciated GM offering.

I personally think GM did a fantastic job with this car and I hope all future Cadillacs have the same or higher level of development, engineering and overall execution.

However, the new SRX isnt lighting my fire as (going by assumptions alone) it doesnt quite give the same level of uniqueness and driver involvement as its predecessor. The new SRX should have been based on the CTS as that would seem to be a much better foundation in terms of portraying Cadillacs overall mission.

Hondaacura,

The SRX hasnt even been fully tested yet. I think its a little early to say its coming up short vs the CTS. The current SRX is based on the CTS platform but it has not sold well because its too wagonlike. In addition its not very fuel efficient. The new SRX is more efficient and more compact and has the torque vectoring AWD system from the 9-3 Turbo X. I would say the 2010 SRX looks just as unique as the CTS. I can't think of anything else on the road that remotely resembles the SRX.

I think the CTS is better styled the the Genesis, at least on the outside.

The Genesis does absolutely nothing for me styling wise, inside or out. Like someone else mentioned, it's the Camry of luxury sedans. It puts me to sleep just looking at it. It barely looks like anything special today, and the car just came out. I think within 2 years, the Genesis will look dated and very plain. If Hyundai ends up selling a lot of them, the situation will be even worse. The problem is, Hyundai copied just about every styling element except for the grille, from other cars already on the road. So there is practically nothing unique or eye catching to the design. The CTS is the complete opposite. It's very distinctive, original, sporty, classy, muscular, and has a lot of interesting design elements that you appreciate the more you look at the car. It shares virtually no other design element or theme with competing cars on the road.

I sat in the Genesis at the car show, and while it had lots of room, and was quite comfortable, that's about all I could say that was nice. The dash design is another yawn, and the silver plastic trim with silver buttons on the center console looks cheap, and is like a throw-back to the mid-1980's (Chrysler K-cars and Mitsubishi's of that era had the same design). The rest of the dash was like a bad knock-off of the S-class dash, and that's not a good thing in original form.

Other than the price and feature content, I fail to see what is nice about the Genesis. Certainly nothing original. I know I would be completely bored with the Genesis in less than a year of ownership.

The Genesis is the perfect car for someone who was considering a Lexus. I suspect most Lexus owners wouldnt be caught dead in something as attractive and avant garde as the CTS and thus most Genesis owners probably didn't even check out the Cadillac. The Genesis is a fine car for those looking to blend in with the crowd. Asian luxury cars are not known for style or originality and the GEnesis continues that tradition. The original LS was derivative from a styline perspective and so is the Genesis.

IMO the CTV is a good looking car. I like the edgy design, but the only thing I can't stand is the base model. It has UGLY grey plastic where the fog lights would be and the base wheels look like they belong on a Malibu, not a Cadi. I don't understand how GM gives their "luxury" car division such a cheap look. I don't even know what a base CTS lists for, but I know that they aren't cheap. Just another detail that GM doesn't nail in my eyes. At least on a base model 3 or 5 series or a base MB or Audi, they give you a decent set of wheels.

I agree with what many say about the Genesis styling. From the outside, it looks like every other mid-sized sedan on the road. I'd even say, it looks slightly below average. The inside is nice, but not any nicer than anyone else in it's price range. The overall dash design is odd to me, but that's personal preference.

Nothing wrong with the Genesis, but no where near what it's trumped up to be.

I haven't played with the CTS, so I can't speak too much there. I'm interested though.

Remember Albert that Genesis is on Tau Engine, Lexicon Audio system, and not a sports sedan.
Its a Luxury sedan even though it doesnt have a nameplate.

If I were 50+ I'd dig the CTS. But I like lighter, more flingable, smaller cars. I could see myself enjoying a car like a CTS when I'm near-dead (50+).

audi:

The only thing I agree with is your view of the wheels- the base rims are terrible. I totally disagree that GErman cars always get this right. Oftentimes a base model BMW or Audi looks pathetic with its standard 16" wheels. There is nothing worse than a 328 with standard rims- it looks like a rental car which it probably would be in Germany. There is nothing "cheap" looking about the CTS.