Spy Photo: 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Wagon Caught

Pretty cool.

Another lutz-like halo car that does nothing to help the bottom line at GM.

BGDC, so its ok for Audi to have an RS6 wagon, but if a GM brand does it... oh right, it doesn't matter what they do, you'll find a way to bash it. Moving on...

Anyway, I will save long and hard to replace our Taurus wagon with this. A 300+hp increase should do nice for an upgrade. Much fun could be had on the way to the grocery store.

Shame they kept the awful cts v grilles and front diffuser. Still, cool car.

I sure hope they finally put a stick shift into the effing thing.

Awwww darn. If this came out two years earlier I might just have gotten it over the M3 sedan.
I prefer the more compact dimensions and tighter handling of the M3 (M3 wagon, where are thou?), but a super-sedan with wagon practicality very difficult to resist.
STOV, better save the pennies, quick! It may not be around for long.

I am not a domestic car guy by any stretch of the imagination but I absolutely would have cross shopped this when we replaced my wife's car. I love the idea of the power and brakes of a proper sports sedan with some actual utility.

I wonder what the price point will be.

But I do agree with you... it will find far fewer homes than anyone expects. Look how few A6 Avant, 5 series wagon and AMG 6.3 estates find homes in the US. Precious few.

stovt001, is Audi paid for by americans via taxes? Did we bail out Audi?

There are actually people out there (stovt001) that think GM invested as much energy on cars like previous Aveo, the Cobalt, and the Solstice as they did the CTS-V??

hahahahahahahahhahah

There is already a CTS-V and there is already a CTS wagon. Amount of "your" tax dollars that went to create this car? Very little. It's all off the the shelf parts.

Value of a car that makes people go WOW when it drives by? Priceless. Never underestimate the value of a halo car.

Sure GM should take more effort in their low price offerings but that's not enough. You need to create an image that your products are what people want to buy. GM needs cars people dream about owning someday because that's what sells the volume models today.

If there were a god Cadillac would sell more of these than X5 M's and and X6 M's combined.

This is a very coherent design; I must say this is much better looking than the coupe.

"BGDC, so its ok for Audi to have an RS6 wagon, but if a GM brand does it... oh right, it doesn't matter what they do, you'll find a way to bash it. Moving on..."

BMW sells an M5 wagon, M-B an E63 wagon, and Audi S and RS wagons in Europe. They make money there and sell in decent numbers. In the U.S. it's a completely different story. The cost for the Germans to certify for sale in the U.S. cars that already have their development cost recouped in Europe is a fraction of what it would have cost GM to make this thing, a car that will only be sold in the U.S. And they STILL don't do it. It was a pretty stupid move, I give it 2, maybe 3 years. That doesn't mean it's a bad car, but it is not a good business decision given GM's limited resources and the other places those development dollars are desperately needed.

"M3 wagon, where are thou?"

Don't remind me; if Munich would build one it would be in my garage tomorrow.

"is a fraction of what it would have cost GM to make this thing, ..."

And I ask again where is the cost?

There is already a CTS wagon and CTS sedan. That's paid for.

There is already a CTS-V sedan. That's paid for.

The extra cost of bolting the V hardware in the wagon as done in it's virtual clone the sedan is minor.

And if it helps even a few hundred Americans realize that wagons are just CUVs that look and handle better then it's worth every cent.

Firstwagon, stop trying. Facts like the development costs are completely irrelevant and unwanted when a knee-jerk hatred is so much easier to form.

And regardless of how little it cost GM to do this, and regardless of how many of GM's tax dollars they got back (because remember, GM pays taxes too, and lots of them), and regardless of how much they spent on cars years ago (why should they spend less money on Cadillacs now because they spent little on compacts in the past?) the bottom line is, the more CTS-V wagons on the road rather than horrid 5 Series GTs, X6Ms, and ZDXs, the better. Wagons, regardless of who makes them, need to make a comeback, and crossovers, especially the new weird niche models, need to die.

@charlesb says:
07:41 AM, 03/ 7/10
"I sure hope they finally put a stick shift into the effing thing."

You can get a "stick" in the effing thing.

Wow, lots of defense of a vehicle that will sell maybe several hundred copies in a year? Halo cars? This isn't 1962. Nobody comes into a GM dealership to a ZR-1 and then picks up a Malibu.

How many halo cars does Ford have? Honda? Toyota?

If they were rolling in cash and in a strong position I could see it but given how weak they are it's just odd to decide to make a high performance wagon for a nation that seems to abhor premium wagons (sadly) and ignore performance models.

The comment "knee-jerk hatred" about criticizers of GM is way off the mark. Its easier to say that than do some research or take a few minutes to understand where others are coming from.

If the CTS-V in general would have a better looking front end...

"Nobody comes into a GM dealership to a ZR-1 and then picks up a Malibu. "

Of course they do. How many ZR-1 owners only own one car? You need something for the wife, kids and shopping.

I better thing to say is no one driving a ZR-1 picks up a Camry.

@firstwagon,

"And I ask again where is the cost?"

"The extra cost of bolting the V hardware in the wagon as done in it's virtual clone the sedan is minor."

I worked for a time in automotive finance, you would be absolutely astounded at some of the costs to make "minor" changes. My understanding is that the V chassis, suspension and subframes have substantial changes from the standard CTS. The car would have had to be re-crash tested, re-certified (manual and automatic transmissions) along with the design/tuning/shakedown/refinement/durability development, yes all repeated. It's staggering. We completely take for granted how truly reliable modern cars are, because manufacturers don't "just drop in a different engine" and call it a day.

I hate the looks, but love the idea. I love both wagons and the CTS-V, so this *should* be my dream car, but the looks just kill it for me. Call me superficial. :/

This car bothers me only because it's a crappy wagon. It looks great (actually looks better in non-V form - nicer grill), goes like hell, etc. But have any of you seen the inside of the wagon? As in, the cargo area? It's joke. This thing is at best a hatch. Rear hedroom is laughable. My small lab would feel claustrophobic. I own (for 3.5 years now) a Volvo V70R, and was hoping this could be a replacement. Forget it. The V70R has about twice the cargo space available.

If the CTS (nevermind the V) wagon fails it will be because it has horrible cargo space. Not for looks, image, quality or price, but rather because it does next to nothing to add utlity.

Instead, I'll keep the Volvo for as long as possible and get an M3 sedan when the time comes (500 pounds lighter and smaller with a sublime engine/exhaust note).

Don't feel bad felonious. The looks completely killed the new Mazdaspeed3 for me. I'd also refuse to consider any Acura as long as the current styling theme continues, no matter how good the rest of the car is. Before you can drive it, you must walk up to it, and that should be a pleasant experience. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the V's styling tweaks, but for me they aren't anywhere close to a dealbreaker.

Enthusiasts can hope that it comes with a manual (which is does). Personally, I hope it comes with an auto. Because while I loved my many manual equiped cars, today I must share my single care with a non-stick driving spouse who spends much time in Chicago traffic; no auto = no sale.

Mazda's insistance on manual only for the MS3 continues to baffle me. They would probably double sales of that model with a decent auto or DSG.

"Mazda's insistence on manual only for the MS3 continues to baffle me. "

I actually admire them for making a car with no sunroof or slushbox option. If only BMW would build a few 1ers similarly equipped.

@road, gotta order it with the manual and no roof. Yep, in 2010 the 128 is available without a sunroof (like the 328).

Order it ED, pick it up in Munich and have a blast... ;)

"Yep, in 2010 the 128 is available without a sunroof "

I noticed that. I've been configuring a few 128i M Sports on the BMW USA page. The sweet spot is @$37K. Not bad...

"Order it ED, pick it up in Munich and have a blast... ;)"

I might help cover the 2011 Frankfurt show, so I'm considering it.

"you would be absolutely astounded at some of the costs to make "minor" changes."

No I wouldn't. I worked for a major corporation of over a decade. It's the biggest failing of large modern companies.

" My understanding is that the V chassis, suspension and subframes have substantial changes from the standard CTS"

And you are correct.

"The car would have had to be re-crash tested, re-certified (manual and automatic transmissions) along with the design/tuning/shakedown/refinement/durability development, yes all repeated."

I don't think so. The sedan and wagon are the same car except for some bodywork at the rear. The reason badge engineering is popular in the US is because once you certify one version of the car you can make all the different trim versions you want without having to redo it.

"We completely take for granted how truly reliable modern cars are, because manufacturers don't "just drop in a different engine" and call it a day."

How are they just "dropping in another engine"? They already have a CTS-V. Have you not noticed?