IL Track Tested: 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon

Wow, for the same money, you could get a more practical and much quicker 535i xDrive...

The CTS is crawling up in price ever since its release in 2008 ($32,990, then).

I'm confused--it's "sporty" but the "acceleration is adequate, nothing more" and the "engine isn't involving."

Frankly, it looks like a bread van. I'll pass.

I hear a *THUD*.

Looks great, much better then the sedan.

Shame it's so heavy and slow (for the price)

"The CTS is crawling up in price ever since its release in 2008 ($32,990, then)."

My local Caddy dealer has a ton of CTS sedans on the lot with non DI, DI engines and various popular options. They are all priced over $41K. Not that the car isn't worth it but I've yet to see a CTS under $37K.

In regards to the SportWagon, I actually like its design better than the CTS sedan. Easily one of the best looking wagons available today along with the Audi A4 Avant and Audi RS6 Avant.

definitely good looking.

The D-pillar is too fat. Poor visibility = F41L

A small point, but I think it would be more helpful to post the curb weight below the horsepower/torque figures so readers could get a basic idea of power to weight ratio. With vehicle weights being much more than they used to, you can't take 300 hp with the same weight as you would before. It's certainly reflected here with acceleration numbers.

That said, it's a nice looking wagon. I'm all for more high(er) performance hatches and wagons hitting US showrooms. I love 'em.

empowah - And your 535xi wagon would START at $55,800. That is one expensive Caddy.

"Wow, for the same money, you could get a more practical and much quicker 535i xDrive..."

For the money? Really? The 5 series is far more expensive than the CTS across the board.

"The CTS is crawling up in price ever since its release in 2008 ($32,990, then)."

BAse CTS is $37k with 270hp. BAse 528 is $45k with 230hp. The CTS has crept up in price, but its still far cheaper than the 5 series. A CTS with the 304hp engine is cheaper than the base 528i and includes HIDs, 18s, memory, etc. which are not standard on the BMW.

It's hideous (I've seen a couple on the road, in Metro-Detroit of course), expensive, and those performance numbers outside of that slalom are lukewarm. No thanks.

Another stupid vehicle. It looks nice but is kinda slow for Fifty four freaking thousand dollars. And no matter how much I like wagons and auto writers like wagons, most Americans like sedans. It will sell like Cimmarons (for those of you of the age of 1487 that is not a good thing) If you listen carefully you can hear your tax dollars dripping down the drain into the black hole that is GM.

"It's hideous (I've seen a couple on the road, in Metro-Detroit of course), expensive, and those performance numbers outside of that slalom are lukewarm. No thanks."

Its good looking, has performance on par with a 528 wagon and costs less than the 528 or A6 wagon. Since when is a 118ft stop for a 4100lb car "lukewarm"? Oh, its lukewarm when you hate products based on the badge and manufacturer.

How ironic is it when a BMW fan calls another car "expensive"? I would say pretty darn ironic. Especially when this Cadillac is cheaper than a comparable German wagon.

Enough said.

"Another stupid vehicle. It looks nice but is kinda slow for Fifty four freaking thousand dollars. "

There are any number of $50k crossovers and SUVs that are slower than this. Don't pretend price and acceleration have a direct relationship.

" It will sell like Cimmarons (for those of you of the age of 1487 that is not a good thing)"

They only expect to sell 5k-7k a year and they are OK with that. Its built on the same line as CTS and they don't need high volume to justify the car. Your comment would make sense if GM had projected high volumes- they didn't.

But you are right, a high quality luxury wagon that gets better mileage than any comparable luxury crossover is a sure fire sign that GM is going under. That must explain why their share will go up next month according to Edmunds. You are on target as usual.

Good looking car, good quality...price is too high (although the base price is more reasonable).

Here's my problem, and maybe a tip for the US auto industry. Until we have "perceived value" if you're going to price a vehicle into MB, BMW, Audi territory it better be a better value. Because those brands have "brand" and our American cars do not. I like wagons and was excited to see a nice looking US wagon being made. But at that price I can get a 3-series wagon, AV Avant, and like some people posted a 5-series wagon and have a car that has some perceived value (not to mention free maintenance in the BMW).

We must undercut the price to compete (ask Hyundai about how to do that). The media forced us to think the CTS was a 3-series competitor when it's actually 5 series big. So that is the price point we have to look at.

It lost 0.7 seconds to 60 and a full second to 75 against the sedan.

And the pricing is getting ridiculous. In 2008 the DI sedan started at 35K, check off the sport package and the Bose radio and you were done at 39 and change. Not a bargain like the G35/G37 but reasonable.

Just two years later that sedan has climbed $5,000 and the wagon is another $2,000 on top of that. That's not price creep, it's full on sprint.

And on top of that the base engine has been downgraded from the entirely adequate SFI 3.6 to a torqueless 3.0 that's been panned in every car its shown up in.

Yeah, I find it very amusing people comparing this vrs the bmw 5 series wagon...come on, a bit of sense and of course a little more info will show that the bimmer of course is way more expensive.

Since when stopping in 118 feet with a curb weight of 4200lbs is only respectable?
Good numbers overall of these car, of course who wouldnt like a bit more acceleration with a direct injected 304 hp V6? Yeah needs improvement in that area.

"Here's my problem, and maybe a tip for the US auto industry. Until we have "perceived value" if you're going to price a vehicle into MB, BMW, Audi territory it better be a better value. Because those brands have "brand" and our American cars do not. "

European wagons dont sell at the prices asked by the manufacturers so I dont get your logic. The CTS is CHEAPER than the 5 series or A6 Avant and you are saying its too expensive. The base price is $40k- this is a fully loaded model. I would say Caddy is on the right track by undercutting competitors from Europe in price.

"Good numbers overall of these car, of course who wouldnt like a bit more acceleration with a direct injected 304 hp V6? Yeah needs improvement in that area. "

The engine is NA so it cant keep up with a turbo I6 making 300lb ft. There is nothing wrong with the engine but this car weighs 4200lbs. Its still faster than the SRX 2.8T and Volvo XC60 so its not really "slow". Its only slow compared to a 535 which is pricier.

"And on top of that the base engine has been downgraded from the entirely adequate SFI 3.6 to a torqueless 3.0 that's been panned in every car its shown up in. "

The "downgraded" engine is better than what BMW gives you in the 5 series or what MB gives you in the C300. Have you looked at the torque ratings on those engines? They are no better. The 3L has only been criticized because of the mass of the vehicles its asked to move. The base CTS is about 3800lbs so the 3L should be adequate, if not thrilling. Hp/weight ratios are similar to the 528.

The CTS "sport wagon" looks sweet in my opinion. I will take one in black, and "murder it out".

I have seen a bunch on the road and I think it looks great from all angles. Well done!

Besides the A4 Avant, the Cadi is the next best looking wagon on the road in America.

The only thing I would change is to lose the Chrome/polished aluminum wheels and make the front chrome trim all painted to match the rest of the car. But, that's a personal opinion, as I just hate chrome.

I think that it's a bad move for GM to offer the 3.0L as the base engine. It's not a bad engine, but the 3.6l did just fine and makes more torque. That one is a head scratcher....????

1487 you are the most obtuse person on this board. GM is spending OUR money on a car that will not sell in enough numbers to break even. Wagons just dont sell in the US. They need to make a car that will SELL. GM is STILL losing money hand over fist so say again how this bankrupt bloated whale of a company is doing well again?

Audisport "I have seen a bunch on the road and I think it looks great from all angles. Well done!" Ahem...how many is a bunch? I truly find that hard to believe since they have been just introduced.

I'd be happier with the CTS if it were less 5-series sized and more 3-series sized. As it is, I have to acknowledge that GM has made a rather attractive mid-sized luxury sedan that appears to offer performance on-par with the segment average and then probably go do something else with my time. It's a nice car, but short of the V, it fails to really excite in such a crowded, competent segment of the market.

@bodyblue- I live near Detroit. They have been on the roads here testing for months.

"1487 you are the most obtuse person on this board. GM is spending OUR money on a car that will not sell in enough numbers to break even. Wagons just dont sell in the US. They need to make a car that will SELL. GM is STILL losing money hand over fist so say again how this bankrupt bloated whale of a company is doing well again?"

Good point, bodyblue. Mercedes, Audi, and BMW sell very very few entry and mid-lux segment wagons in the U.S., so few that they configure limited trim choices for the U.S. market. The C-Class wagon isn't even offered here and the IS300 SportCross was a flop. It takes a big pile of money to develop a new body style (think design, engineering, crash/durability testing, certification, factory retooling, production and marketing support costs) and for GM to do so when they're bound to lose money on it is irresponsible use of our taxpayer dollars. The Germans have the advantage of selling a ton of their wagons in Europe to recoup their costs, so their U.S. sales really only need to cover certification, currency hedge, and marketing support. GM doesn't have that advantage. If the money had to stay within the Cadillac brand it would have been better spent on a better SRX replacement than GM wrought. Not on an overpriced low-volume wagon.

" hondacura4 says:

07:40 PM, 10/27/09
They are all priced over $41K. Not that the car isn't worth it but I've yet to see a CTS under $37K."

I have yet to see a BMW 5-series or MB E-class under $37k (the CTS' competitors) either. So what's the point?

"@bodyblue- I live near Detroit. They have been on the roads here testing for months. "

That makes sense, since it is destined to be a sales flop.

Thanks Bimmerjay.......my point was that when GM is on its own again then they can take all the chances they want.....but not with MY money they cant. At least Mopar has Fiat to help it......and now that Cr has come out with the reliability stats, GM bites it again. (along with mopar) Ford is the ONLY American owned car company that is making cars that are competitive with the Eastern car makers in reliablity.....believe CR or not, a lot of people take it as gospel. Look at the Fords in the IL fleet....does anybody really think it is just a fluke? Ford is on the rise both in sales and quality as well as reputation...their rebate per car is going down....far less than GM and Mopar. GM still has to throw money at people to sell cars (camaro excepting). The CTS wagon is proof that things have not changed all that much at Cadillac. Just because it says Cadillac on it does not mean people will buy it......those days ended in the 1970's. Buick has some nice cars (LaCross and Enclave) aimed at specific high volume markets....that is good marketing....but why is GMC sill alive when Saturn bit the dust? The same arrogant bums who ruined GM are still in charge and with the US Goverment on the board along with the UAW, GM does not stand a snowballs chance in hell of surviving.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33495183/ns/business-autos/

1. Scion
2. Honda
3. Toyota
4. Infiniti
5. Acura
6. Mitsubishi
7. Lexus
8. Hyundai
9. Porsche
10. Mercury
11. Saab
12. Subaru
13. Suzuki
14. Kia
15. Mazda
16. Ford
17. Nissan
18. Volvo
19. Buick
20. Lincoln
21. Volkswagen
22. Pontiac
23. Mercedes-Benz
24. Audi
25. Chevrolet
26. BMW
27. Mini
28. GMC
29. Saturn
30. Jeep
31. Dodge
32. Cadillac
33. Chrysler

1487 it must make you feel better that you are not on the bottom. But Hyundai and Kia kick GMs but....as do Suzuki...yeah things are turning around.

And I do find it interesting that there is only ONE European car (Porsche) above Ford and Mercury.

1487, what I mean is that the CTS started off as the obvious 3-series competitor - priced comparably with similar equipment and technology, albeit a bit bigger and heavier, like the TL and G37.

But with ginormous price increases each year, it's now getting close to 5-series money, even though there haven't been any major changes. According to Cadillac, the STS is still the 5-series competitor, along with the A6 and E-class.

Caddy's biggest problem is that it competes with the nonexistent 4 series BMW. I would love to buy a Cadillac and a CTS-V Sport Wagon would be my dream car, but it's way too expensive for me to even get a regular CTS... it hovers between 3 and 5 series in pricing. Dollar for dollar it's the car I'd buy, but flat out I can't buy into the brand with an entry level model. Can we have a 1 series competitor? I'd love to get that with the DI 3.6 to combat the several 135i's I see running around on campus. Luckily my SRT-4 can run with them and beat them, but the pounding my spine takes is an argument for not being worth it.

1487, I tend to agree with you in general... gotta know what you drive for your defense of GM? I was brought up in a Chevy household so I naturally tend to go to their defense. Family is planning on moving to Ford due to government bailouts, though.

Information worth repeating:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33495183/ns/business-autos/

GM:

I'm still waiting for a 3-series competitor. 1-Series?

http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/07/07/cadillacs-future-smaller-3-series-fighter-xts-as-a-lexus-es-rival-a-small-city-car-and-smaller-escalade/

"1487 you are the most obtuse person on this board. GM is spending OUR money on a car that will not sell in enough numbers to break even. "

Your lack of understanding of the business is astounding. This car has very little development cost and the fact that it will sell for a PREMIUM over the sedan makes it very likely to be profitable. This will be just a small percentage of CTS production for the year but the platform and factory are shared with the sedan. There is no logical reason to assume this car would be a money loser.

"It's a nice car, but short of the V, it fails to really excite in such a crowded, competent segment of the market."

I'm not sure what "excite" really means in this context but its amongst the top sellers in the midsize class and it has outsold the redesigned TL since it debuted in 2008- same with the G35 sedan. The CTS has also outsold the ES350 on many occasions.

Bimmerjay:

Who told you that the CTS sedan is a money loser? Has GM ever said that? If we presume the CTS doesnt lose money I would like for you to explain how the more expensive Sportwagon would lose money. GM doesn't lose money on luxury cars and trucks. They lose money on low end, high volume cars like the Cobalt, HHR, G6, etc. Luxury cars have TONS of profit built in to their MSRPs. A loaded Lacrosse is $41k while a loaded CTS is $54k in spite of having similar equipment. I would say its "irresponsible" to make up facts when you have nothing concrete to support your stance.

"1487, I tend to agree with you in general... gotta know what you drive for your defense of GM? I was brought up in a Chevy household so I naturally tend to go to their defense. Family is planning on moving to Ford due to government bailouts, though."

I'm not a fan of people who don't tell the truth. Since GM is the underdog and is so hated by people who have nothing better to do I find it easy to defend them when warranted.

Unlike many here I cannot plunk down $30k on a vehicle based on things like resale value or what my friends might say about my car. In the non luxury market GM offers the most choices that combine value, style, features and fuel efficiency. Few Asian cars have any aesthetic appeal to me and I cannot buy a car that I don't find visually stimulating. Ford has made big strides and finally has some cars worth considering. Mazda makes some compelling vehicles for reasonable prices as well.

"The Germans have the advantage of selling a ton of their wagons in Europe to recoup their costs, so their U.S. sales really only need to cover certification, currency hedge, and marketing support. GM doesn't have that advantage. If the money had to stay within the Cadillac brand it would have been better spent on a better SRX replacement than GM wrought. Not on an overpriced low-volume wagon."

What "currency hedge" does Cadillac need to worry about with a car made in Michigan? As for marketing- Cadillac has done print ads with ALL the CTS models. No extra costs. Not sure about any certification costs associated with this model. You have any details?

Again, what context are you using when calling the car "overpriced"? You keep saying that but don't explain what reference point you are using. The car is CHEAPER than its European rivals. The A6 3.0T Avant starts at $53k and you are calling the $40k CTS "overpriced". Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The SRX sold well last month and probably will do better this month. I guess you are basing your opinions on the SRX bashing reviews written on this site but Cadillac designed a vehicle that will appeal to most luxury crossover customers instead of worrying about what "enthusiasts" have to say. "enthusiasts" have been lukewarm on the Lexus RX since it came out and yet it remains the undisputed best seller. Cadillac had to worry about sales, not pleasing a small % of critics who wouldn't likely buy a crossover in the first place.

"1487 it must make you feel better that you are not on the bottom. But Hyundai and Kia kick GMs but....as do Suzuki...yeah things are turning around."

Yes, Suzuki is very successful in this market. I'm sure GM is envious of their marketshare. Good point- you the man!

".......my point was that when GM is on its own again then they can take all the chances they want.....but not with MY money they cant. At least Mopar has Fiat to help it......and now that Cr has come out with the reliability stats, GM bites it again. (along with mopar) Ford is the ONLY American owned car company that is making cars that are competitive with the Eastern car makers in reliablity.....believe CR or not, a lot of people take it as gospel. Look at the Fords in the IL fleet....does anybody really think it is just a fluke? Ford is on the rise both in sales and quality as well as reputation...their rebate per car is going down....far less than GM and Mopar. GM still has to throw money at people to sell cars (camaro excepting)."

When you are bigoted you tend to be detached from reality. Exibit A would your quote above.

1. Malibu and Fusion were rated higher than camry/Accord in reliability in CR's flawed survey. Guess you missed that.

2. GM share has been going up the last 3 months and it will again next month according to edmunds and GM.

3. GM does not have notable incentives on Lacrosse, SRX, Equinox or Camaro. Ford is offering cash back and 0% financing on Fusion, Mustang, etc. Chevy transaction prices in key segments are higher than comparable Toyota transaction prices in recent weeks. Toyota is using more incentives than ever.

4. Fiat isnt known for reliability and the newest Fiat models wont be here for 2 years. CR has made it clear that Chrysler is much worse off than GM with regards to reliability-if you believe in their data.

5. Ford' share has been going up but they trail GM and Toyota in monthly sales by a decent margin. Its not just about share, its about actual sales and Ford has been unable to dislodge Toyota from the #2 spot.

1487, you do your homework. I can appreciate that...

OH 1487...the master of obtuse. lets go over this one by one for you.

1 Malibu AND Fusion......GM has ONE car it builds to competitive quality...Wow good job...do you personally build it?

2 GM share going up after 30 years of going down...we will see the amount.

3 Transaction prices in recent WEEKS? LOL you are kidding right? Can you read? I am not talking about Toyota, you always change the sugject..we are talking about FORD.

4 Talking about how bad Fiat is has nothing to do with how truly bad Cadillac and the rest of GM is...can you comment on that or are you going to just say how bad CR is?

5 You are the one talking about share....Ford is going to be making money unlike GM. GM had the largest share in the US then went bankrupt so share means NOTHING. Ford knew it had to become smaller to get better and it did. Alan Mulallay saved Ford from itself...GM has nobody like him and never will because the UAW and Obama will not let it happen.

And speaking of detached from reality, tell me about any part of what I said is not true. You cant.

The Suzuki comment was referring to Quality not share wich means NOTHING if you cant make quality cars and make a profit. I really do think you work for GM because they cant see that either.

Lets get back to the point wich you try so much to obscure. Cadillac has poor quality....the worst by far (except Chrysler) of any car on the street. Far worse than the mediocre European cars it competes against (in quality).

My final point, Ford is the best domestic car maker, period. It has survived by the hard work and brains of its people....by making good cars and trucks that people want and will continue to do so...without government help. GM failed again and again to turn itself around and it bit the dust.....but thats ok because it has good market share........keep drinking the Kool-Aid 1487

audisport....1487 picks and chooses his facts in doing his homework. He sometimes makes correct points but loses credibility with his total bias for GM.

1487, normally I don't read your posts. I will keep this as short as I can-

"Who told you that the CTS sedan is a money loser?"

No one? I didn't even say that.

"I would like for you to explain how the more expensive Sportwagon would lose money."

I'm going to assume that you do not work in a finance or manufacturing/R&D environment. Almost all cars lose money on an amortized basis until they've recouped their project costs. It's not that hard to make a positive gross margin on sales, but when capitalized development costs are factored in, new products run at a net loss until the actual ROI on the project is realized. A vehicle like the wagon would likely have a higher-risk, longer-term ROI based on the market it competes in. That is irresponsible given GM's predicament.

"What "currency hedge" does Cadillac need to worry about with a car made in Michigan?"

They don't. You misunderstood the point. That was something the Germans have to deal with, as I stated.

"Again, what context are you using when calling the car "overpriced"?"

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Cadillac's dealer network, resale value, build quality, driving experience, brand perception, and depth of engineering refinement IMO do not justify the MSRPs they charge. This is why GM dealers sell cars at and below invoice often with rebates and subsidized financing. I really don't care if your opinion on this matter differs because value means different things to different people. You can spout off MSRPs of competitive vehicles and "features" all you want, but when it comes to things like perceived value and actual cost of ownership that means nothing.

This is a really cool car / wagon. I fail to understand why the folks at GM always spill the milk at the door. A base CTS sedan, per Edmunds.com, starts at $36,730. Why can't GM offer the "sports wagon" at a similar price? Other than the price, this car looks awesome!

I had considered the CTS Sportwagon, but ended up buying a Venza. The V6 Venza is comparable or close in most performance tests other than slalom and skid pad. The Venza does not handle quite as well nor is it as luxurious, but it has AWD, much more cargo and rear seat room and a sticker that is about $15,000 less than the Sportwagon with similar equipment. I would love to see the CTS Sportwagon succeed, but in my opinion is priced about $10,000 too high for what it offers.