Cadillac CTS Thread: Rumors of Duramax Power Return...

[Tornado]

Whoever designed the Commodore series should be given some credit and replace Bob Lutz.

Bob Luts probably had something to do with designing the new Commodore. Should he replace himself?

So far, out of all the cars GM has come out over the years, only 5 came out good (Enclave/Outlook (Arcadia excluded), the Holden's, Opel/Vauxhall Vectra (not the round-back Saturn Aura), GMC Sierra-series, Cadillac STS/SLS, and the new-gen Avalanche/Escalade EXT).

Saab 9-3. Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice. Cadillac XLR. Cadillac SVX. Chevrolet Corvette. Maybe the Cobalt.

 

[TopHat]

You forgot the New Vue.

 

[Tornado]

You forgot the New Vue.

I don't know enough about it to make a defining opinion on it, other than it is heavy and has bad gas mileage.

 

[Duphman]

"Bob Lutz probably had something to do with designing the new Commodore. Should he replace himself?"

I'd like to see how a person could pull that off. I see good things in Cadillac's future. Now to see how the CTS-V performs.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

Bob Luts probably had something to do with designing the new Commodore. Should he replace himself?

Saab 9-3. Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice. Cadillac XLR. Cadillac SVX. Chevrolet Corvette. Maybe the Cobalt.

^ I don't hear (or see) much credit from Mr. Lutz in regards to the Commodore design, all I hear that he is always bragging on how beautiful the next Malibu is, in which it looks very unproportional.

-> Those cars you just mention. Honestly, the 9-3 is just a vague facelift copy of the 9-5; the Sky/Solstice/Opel GT proves to be impractical, all looks and no function, based on my test drive on the Solstice, it acts more like a FWD plowing all over the track; the XLR which its America's best-est effort falls short compared to the competition (too many cheap-o materials for its price), SVX? Maybe the SRX, looks like a bloated CTS, again, too many cheap-o materials; the legendary Covette, driven the Z51, ended up getting dissapointed - drives like a Silverado on the race track; and the Cobalt, they should have imported the Astra 3 years ago and badge it as a Chevy like the ones in Asia and S.America.

You forgot the New Vue.

I don't know enough about it to make a defining opinion on it, other than it is heavy and has bad gas mileage.

^ And its made by Daewoo for crying out loud! The Chevy Captiva (the 7-seat version of the same platform in Europe) is slightly better but still lags compared to the competition.

I'd like to see how a person could pull that off. I see good things in Cadillac's future. Now to see how the CTS-V performs.

^ The CTS-V is very promising, as long as they change that front grille to a mesh-type.

 

[Tornado]

^ I don't hear (or see) much credit from Mr. Lutz in regards to the Commodore design, all I hear that he is always bragging on how beautiful the next Malibu is, in which it looks very unproportional.

I happen to agree that the new Malibu looks bad, but Lutz knew from the start that the Commodore was going to come to America. He knew it was like everyone else did, so I doubt it was that far a stretch that he helped hand-pick who designed it.

-> Those cars you just mention. Honestly, the 9-3 is just a vague facelift copy of the 9-5;

Someone, hold me back...
Okay, here is the problem: The 9-3 is the best put-together vehicle in GM's entire arsenal, and the only problem with it is that it is a high powered Saab, which means torque steer (though the new AWD system will fix that) and it is a touch expensive. To me, a 9-3 Aero with XWD is a far better deal than anything Cadillac sells. I like it, and I loathe Saabs.
The 9-5, on the other hand, I would call the biggest piece of trash sold by the company, but they still produce the DeVille and they probably sell the Cavalier somewhere too. It is the definition as to why I loathe Saabs.

the Sky/Solstice/Opel GT proves to be impractical, all looks and no function, based on my test drive on the Solstice, it acts more like a FWD plowing all over the track;

Of all the cars in the segment over the past 20 years (Fiero, X1/9, Elan, MR2 and Miata), which one has been practical? And the only thing wrong with the triplets is that they are too heavy and the normal engine is trash. The weight effects the handling, but not to the "plows like a DeVille" level you seem to be suggesting.

the XLR which its America's best-est effort falls short compared to the competition (too many cheap-o materials for its price),

The Cadillac excels against all of its rivals but the SL class. The only real knock against it (there is nothing wrong with the interior of the XLR) is that the car costs too much, which is shared by the SL class as well.

Maybe the SRX, looks like a bloated CTS, again, too many cheap-o materials;

The interior of the SRX is fine, and it is a better proposition than many of its competitors (particularly the X5).

the legendary Covette, driven the Z51, ended up getting dissapointed - drives like a Silverado on the race track;

Wow. I'll wait for Brad.

and the Cobalt, they should have imported the Astra 3 years ago and badge it as a Chevy like the ones in Asia and S.America.

The Astra has no advantages over the Cobalt, if you exclude the wild OPC. None. One could argue that it looks better, which is something I agree with, but that really doesn't matter. They use the same platform, they have much the same driving manners and Opel helped design both of the cars. The Cobalt has more powerful engines and more development time in the car because of its later release. If anything, the Cobalt is better than the Astra, not the other way around. You seem to think the Cobalt is as bad as the Ion was, which is not the case. And in any case, the Astra wouldn't have sold in America, because it isn't available as a sedan.

 

[TopHat]

Absolutely Rediculous. I'd hate to be you TVB when YSSMAN gets around to reading this.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

I happen to agree that the new Malibu looks bad, but Lutz knew from the start that the Commodore was going to come to America. He knew it was like everyone else did, so I doubt it was that far a stretch that he helped hand-pick who designed it.

^ How come I don't see him around the Commodore or the G8 as a matter of fact.

Someone, hold me back...
Okay, here is the problem: The 9-3 is the best put-together vehicle in GM's entire arsenal, and the only problem with it is that it is a high powered Saab, which means torque steer (though the new AWD system will fix that) and it is a touch expensive. To me, a 9-3 Aero with XWD is a far better deal than anything Cadillac sells. I like it, and I loathe Saabs.
The 9-5, on the other hand, I would call the biggest piece of trash sold by the company, but they still produce the DeVille and they probably sell the Cavalier somewhere too. It is the definition as to why I loathe Saabs.

^ Hmm, I kinda doubt that. You excluded one Saab in which it isn't really, the 9-2X. The XWD looks pretty bit interesting, but I don't leave my hopes up just yet.

Of all the cars in the segment over the past 20 years (Fiero, X1/9, Elan, MR2 and Miata), which one has been practical? And the only thing wrong with the triplets is that they are too heavy and the normal engine is trash. The weight effects the handling, but not to the "plows like a DeVille" level you seem to be suggesting.

^ Um, access to the fabric top is one, trunk access is two, and rear visibility with the top up is on this side of the periscope. Compared to a DeVille or DTS for example in plowing, its not that bad, maybe compare it to the Cobalt/ION/G5/Pursuit.

The Cadillac excels against all of its rivals but the SL class. The only real knock against it (there is nothing wrong with the interior of the XLR) is that the car costs too much, which is shared by the SL class as well.

^ Hmm, I kinda doubt that. But still for its quality, and being a GM, its still way too overpriced. I'd rather wait for the Corvette SS/Blue Devil/Z07 or whatever its going to be called.

The interior of the SRX is fine, and it is a better proposition than many of its competitors (particularly the X5).

^ Hmm, I don't know about that, and I'm still not convinced.

The Astra has no advantages over the Cobalt, if you exclude the wild OPC. None. One could argue that it looks better, which is something I agree with, but that really doesn't matter. They use the same platform, they have much the same driving manners and Opel helped design both of the cars. The Cobalt has more powerful engines and more development time in the car because of its later release. If anything, the Cobalt is better than the Astra, not the other way around. You seem to think the Cobalt is as bad as the Ion was, which is not the case. And in any case, the Astra wouldn't have sold in America, because it isn't available as a sedan.

^ Well, whats this then:

-> And not to mention the Coupe:

-> And the nicely equipped Twin-Top:

^ I agree on the engine side, and they could have added a diesel variant too.

Absolutely Rediculous. I'd hate to be you TVB when YSSMAN gets around to reading this.

^ Hey, I'm not creating any grudges here. I'm just expressing my own side of opinion here. At least I'm not trying to troll or anything.

 

[Tornado]

^ How come I don't see him around the Commodore or the G8 as a matter of fact.

The entire Zeta platform and rebadging the cars for America was his idea from the start, as was the rebadging of the Monaro.

^ Hmm, I kinda doubt that. You excluded one Saab in which it isn't really, the 9-2X.

Are you implying that a gussied up Impreza has better build and interior quality than the 9-3?

^ Um, access to the fabric top is one, trunk access is two, and rear visibility with the top up is on this side of the periscope.

Huh? I understand the rear visibility thing, but what do the other two mean?

^ Hmm, I kinda doubt that. But still for its quality, and being a GM, its still way too overpriced.

For it to be overpriced and of poor quality, it has to be in comparison to something. It is worlds better than the sad excuse the SC430 is, and the price is a side effect of that. It may be overpriced compared to the XK, but that just came out, it costs more and it isn't a hard top. The SL class starts at $96,000, and while I do love it, I'm not sure it is worth a $20,000 price hike over the Caddy.

^ Hmm, I don't know about that, and I'm still not convinced.

The X5 3.0 starts at $45,000. The SRX V8 starts at $44,000. The Volvo XC-90 V8 starts at $46,000, and is Cadillacs stiffest competition. The Mercedes ML500 starts at $49,000. The Touareg V8 starts at $48,000.
And this:

Doesn't seem any worse than this:

or this:

^ Well, whats this then:

A previous generation Astra and the Astra sedan that didn't debut until this year. Well after the Cobalt came out.

-> And not to mention the Coupe:

A good thing it went unmetioned, as it isn't sold anymore; and that was a last gen car.

-> And the nicely equipped Twin-Top:

Which would have no market in America.

 

[TopHat]

Is it just me or does the Astra sedan look shockingly similar to the Cobalt? 💡

 

[YSSMAN]

My turn!

The Saab 9-3:

While I wouldn't personally call it the best car GM makes, its one of the better vehicles both inside and out. The recent updates have turned a pretty good car into a damn good one, and the addition of AWD finally puts it back where it belongs; As a semi-competitor to BMW or Mercedes. Build quality and design is all top-notch, but when it comes to picking my favorite Epsilon car, that still goes to the Saturn Aura. Yes, I'm crazy.

The Chevrolet Malibu ('08)

While the design may be a bit uninspiring, its a design overall that works quite well. There are nice touches all over the car, such as the chrome trim beneath the doors, the rather nice fender flares, as well as the overall attractive and somewhat distinct front grille. The rear is a bit of a disaster, but it doesn't look any worse than the Camry... Or worse yet, the Tribeca.

The Kappa Triplets

the Sky/Solstice/Opel GT proves to be impractical, all looks and no function, based on my test drive on the Solstice, it acts more like a FWD plowing all over the track

I haven't driven one personally, but I've spent plenty of time around them. Personally, practicality isn't part of the equation at any point in time when buying a car such as this. You buy it for looks, and thats it. Performance wise, its a decent ride with a good chassis, but it could be tightened up just a bit. The base engine isn't a good unit, but you get what you pay for. However, the GXP and Red Line models are stellar...

The Cadillac XLR

the XLR which its America's best-est effort falls short compared to the competition (too many cheap-o materials for its price)

I have to ask if you've actually been in one or not. As Toronado pointed out, the standard XLR is not a bad ride in the price range. Of course, as the competition has shifted about, it has fallen severely behind, particularly in the engine department as of late. But if you were referring to the XLR-V, I don't think there are many that would be willing to pay $100K for that... Particularly when you can get a XKR for the same price.

The Cadillac SRX

In case you all didn't know, it technically is a bloated CTS. They share the same chassis (well, its closer to the STS, all are based on Sigma), engines, and transmissions. I've been around the SRX for a while, and I'm not sure where the issues that you speak of are coming from. The update it received recently easily put it back into the fold, and like Toronado mentioned, it really isn't much short of the German standards.

The Chevrolet Corvette

the legendary Covette, driven the Z51, ended up getting dissapointed - drives like a Silverado on the race track

1) What year was the Z51 you speak of?
2) What kind of Silverado are we talking about? The GMT900 model actually performs quite well...

Quite frankly, you're off your rocker. I haven't tracked the car, but I've been around enough Corvettes and driven enough of them to know that the Z51 is no slouch. The throttle is the main tool with the car, not to mention the awesomely good suspension and brake setup GM has packed into the car.

Want proof of the Z51's performance?

Car and Driver recently took the '07 Z51 to VIR to race against a bunch of other cars in their second Lightning Lap comparison:

Chevrolet Corvette Z51: 3:03.6
Lotus Exige S: 3:04.5
Audi R8: 3:04.6
Porsche 911 Turbo: 3:05.8
Shelby GT500: 3:05.9

What, a $50K car beat the $120K Lambudi? Keep in mind you can spend another $20K and pull a 2:58.2, and still have money for that Astra XR and Solstice GXP you've had your eye on.

Still, we aren't even counting the improvements for 2008. You get a signifigantly updated interior, more power that actually comes with better fuel economy, not to mention that outstanding GM pricing on the car. You find me a car that I can buy for less than $50K that comes with a 5 year warranty, much less is serviceable at over 5000 dealerships, and outperforms the Corvette Z51, and you get a cookie.

The Saturn VUE ('08)

Again, I have to ask if you've actually been in it... The build quality is outstanding, easily better than a few Toyota products that I know of. Sure, the weight is way off, and fuel economy isn't great, but get everything on the EPA08 standards, and it will all drop.

The Chevrolet Cobalt and the GM Astra

and the Cobalt, they should have imported the Astra 3 years ago and badge it as a Chevy like the ones in Asia and S.America.

Well, lets see. The Astra, like Toronado mentioned, debuted more than a year before the Cobalt, and thusly didn't have many advantages over the American design other than the fact it is German. The parts sharing between the cars is negligible, as the Astra is in fact not a Delta (contrary to popular belief).

I'd say the Astra is better, but don't get me wrong, the Cobalt isn't a bad car either. It was meant to target the MKIV Golf/Jetta, and it did a good job of doing so, and quite frankly, it marked the turning-point for GM as a company that could actually build good cars.

The Cadillac CTS

I don't know why people are so worked up over the grille (I think it looks nice), but thats just design preferences. Overall, its a wonderfully nice car, and with the right options, it should easily conquer (most of) the competition.

 

[Tornado]

The parts sharing between the cars is negligible, as the Astra is in fact not a Delta (contrary to popular belief).

Huh wha? Why would GM let Opel lead the development of the global compact car architecture if Opel wasn't going to use it? And why else would the Opel Astra sedan and Cobalt sedan be identical? And, most importantly, why would Opel decide not to build the Astra on the Delta platform if it had already been out for a year (in the craptastic Ion) and instead build it on a platform older than the J-body?

 

[YSSMAN]

The explanation that Opel gave (if I recall) was that Delta was too heavy and didn't offer the performance they wanted. They instead chose to update what they had, pick and choose pieces from Delta (I want to say they share some suspension bits), and went on from there.

GM decided earlier this year that Delta is going to be the global standard for their new small cars. They're going to pull a Zeta and make the platform adaptable to a wide range of models, as low as the Corsa, as high as the Zafira. The new Delta II chassis will even replace the Aveo if my understanding is correct.

Basically, this is going to be a Saturn/Opel project, and the rest of the companies will pick and choose what they want.

 

[Tornado]

The explanation that Opel gave (if I recall) was that Delta was too heavy and didn't offer the performance they wanted. They instead chose to update what they had

The problem with that is that it doesn't mean anything. It neglects to cover that the Delta was an update of what Opel already had. And that everything I have read about the Cobalt says it is a further development of the platform underpinning the Opel, and that they were designed in conjunction.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> I was expecting that I'll be gained up on this, and since I have a slight handicap as a slow typist. I'll explain my side of the story as best as I can.

Are you implying that a gussied up Impreza has better build and interior quality than the 9-3?

^ Yes, although it has the same mechanicals as my wagon. The 9-2X is far more reliable than the 9-3, and if I like an upscale entry level car, I'll take the TSX anyday.

The Saab 9-3:

While I wouldn't personally call it the best car GM makes, its one of the better vehicles both inside and out. The recent updates have turned a pretty good car into a damn good one, and the addition of AWD finally puts it back where it belongs; As a semi-competitor to BMW or Mercedes. Build quality and design is all top-notch, but when it comes to picking my favorite Epsilon car, that still goes to the Saturn Aura. Yes, I'm crazy.

^ Well, I haven't seen the revamped model in person (I have to wait and see it at the LA autoshow on Nov.). But as what I have seen last time, Its more comparable to Volvo's, say like the new S40. Well not stellar, also not bad, just so-so. I've never liked MBZ and latest BMW's interiors anyway.

The Chevrolet Malibu ('08)

While the design may be a bit uninspiring, its a design overall that works quite well. There are nice touches all over the car, such as the chrome trim beneath the doors, the rather nice fender flares, as well as the overall attractive and somewhat distinct front grille. The rear is a bit of a disaster, but it doesn't look any worse than the Camry... Or worse yet, the Tribeca.

^ The new Tribeca ain't that bad, but if you're talking about the B9, now were talk'n. The Camry on the other hand is not ugly its just bloated. I've seen uglier rears, like the LaCrosse, MKZ/Zypher, Milan, and the New Impreza. Good thing that this isn't really the final production model, maybe Mr. Bob can revise that, I like the the most recent Impala's rear-end.

The Kappa Triplets

I haven't driven one personally, but I've spent plenty of time around them. Personally, practicality isn't part of the equation at any point in time when buying a car such as this. You buy it for looks, and thats it. Performance wise, its a decent ride with a good chassis, but it could be tightened up just a bit. The base engine isn't a good unit, but you get what you pay for. However, the GXP and Red Line models are stellar...

^ Yes, I know that roadsters aren't built for practical reasons. And I haven't got the oppotunity of dirving the the Red Line/GXP/VXR version yet, It kinda looks promising since the base Solstice/Sky/GT drives better than the Vette overall. I'll still take the aged but superb S2000, even if I have to pay the premium for it.

Huh? I understand the rear visibility thing, but what do the other two mean?

^ Um, when you switch tops, you have to get out of the car and go thru a step-by-step process. While unlike, say a MX-5 Miata, you dont have to get out of the car. And the access to the trunk/boot is also inconvienient.

For it to be overpriced and of poor quality, it has to be in comparison to something. It is worlds better than the sad excuse the SC430 is, and the price is a side effect of that. It may be overpriced compared to the XK, but that just came out, it costs more and it isn't a hard top. The SL class starts at $96,000, and while I do love it, I'm not sure it is worth a $20,000 price hike over the Caddy.

^ I've never liked the SC430 and the XK anyway, if we're talking about roadster hard-tops, I'd rather get the Miata roadster coupe, and the SLK55/63 AMG. I've never liked roadsters or should I say PRHT on the 80-110K range, the next one after the SLK55/63 AMG will be the SL65 AMG.

The Cadillac XLR

I have to ask if you've actually been in one or not. As Toronado pointed out, the standard XLR is not a bad ride in the price range. Of course, as the competition has shifted about, it has fallen severely behind, particularly in the engine department as of late. But if you were referring to the XLR-V, I don't think there are many that would be willing to pay $100K for that... Particularly when you can get a XKR for the same price.

^ Yes I do been into one, and yes I don't like that hollow sound on the dashboard when I knock it, just like the Lincoln Navigator. And it looks cheap in person no more better than the Covette.

The X5 3.0 starts at $45,000. The SRX V8 starts at $44,000. The Volvo XC-90 V8 starts at $46,000, and is Cadillacs stiffest competition. The Mercedes ML500 starts at $49,000. The Touareg V8 starts at $48,000.
And this:

Doesn't seem any worse than this:

or this:

^ You're comparing it to one of the worst interiors in its class (seen it person), can you please post a better comparison to the SRX?

The Cadillac SRX

In case you all didn't know, it technically is a bloated CTS. They share the same chassis (well, its closer to the STS, all are based on Sigma), engines, and transmissions. I've been around the SRX for a while, and I'm not sure where the issues that you speak of are coming from. The update it received recently easily put it back into the fold, and like Toronado mentioned, it really isn't much short of the German standards.

^ Although I know it is based on the CTS, was the design been rushed back then? The SRX is not bad, not great either. Plus its reliability is worse than average, thats why I'm not convinced. I don't go initial quality here.

The Chevrolet Corvette

1) What year was the Z51 you speak of?
2) What kind of Silverado are we talking about? The GMT900 model actually performs quite well...

Quite frankly, you're off your rocker. I haven't tracked the car, but I've been around enough Corvettes and driven enough of them to know that the Z51 is no slouch. The throttle is the main tool with the car, not to mention the awesomely good suspension and brake setup GM has packed into the car.

Want proof of the Z51's performance?

Car and Driver recently took the '07 Z51 to VIR to race against a bunch of other cars in their second Lightning Lap comparison:

Chevrolet Corvette Z51: 3:03.6
Lotus Exige S: 3:04.5
Audi R8: 3:04.6
Porsche 911 Turbo: 3:05.8
Shelby GT500: 3:05.9

What, a $50K car beat the $120K Lambudi? Keep in mind you can spend another $20K and pull a 2:58.2, and still have money for that Astra XR and Solstice GXP you've had your eye on.

Still, we aren't even counting the improvements for 2008. You get a signifigantly updated interior, more power that actually comes with better fuel economy, not to mention that outstanding GM pricing on the car. You find me a car that I can buy for less than $50K that comes with a 5 year warranty, much less is serviceable at over 5000 dealerships, and outperforms the Corvette Z51, and you get a cookie.

^ Here's a summery of my answers below:
1. I've driven the C6, in lamest terms the 2006 model.
2. Ok, I've driven the 1500 LT, 3500HD LT (love the Duramax), the 1500 Hybrid, and the 1500 SS. If you want me to include the Sierra w/ Quadrasteer, go right ahead. They're all 2006 models. Haven't gotten a chance to test the more recent ones.

-> I'm not talking about time attacks here (also read the C/D article), yes the Z51 is fast and thats it. But in overall driving feel (in which is more important than the fastest times) while going fast, it feels disconnected, the shift throw is long, and steering imput seems to be lagging. Here's my full review of the 2006 C6 Z51(its on part 14).

The Saturn VUE ('08)

Again, I have to ask if you've actually been in it... The build quality is outstanding, easily better than a few Toyota products that I know of. Sure, the weight is way off, and fuel economy isn't great, but get everything on the EPA08 standards, and it will all drop.

^ So far that is my first impression, I'll tell more about it when I see it on person. And I'll add more once I test drive it, I've driven the 2006 VUE Redline, but enough of the '06.

A previous generation Astra and the Astra sedan that didn't debut until this year. Well after the Cobalt came out.

The Chevrolet Cobalt and the GM Astra

Well, lets see. The Astra, like Toronado mentioned, debuted more than a year before the Cobalt, and thusly didn't have many advantages over the American design other than the fact it is German. The parts sharing between the cars is negligible, as the Astra is in fact not a Delta (contrary to popular belief).

I'd say the Astra is better, but don't get me wrong, the Cobalt isn't a bad car either. It was meant to target the MKIV Golf/Jetta, and it did a good job of doing so, and quite frankly, it marked the turning-point for GM as a company that could actually build good cars.

^ I have driven the LT, SS, and the SS Supercharged twice. Although it drives better than [Neon] SRT-4 and the ION Redline, I think its on par with the Corolla. I can't really comment on the base [Mk.IV] Golf/Jetta, I only driven the R32 in which thats off the mark.

The Cadillac CTS

I don't know why people are so worked up over the grille (I think it looks nice), but thats just design preferences. Overall, its a wonderfully nice car, and with the right options, it should easily conquer (most of) the competition.

^ Just look at it very well, compared to the balanced stying of the STS. It really does look awkward, the rest looks promising I tell you.

Huh wha? Why would GM let Opel lead the development of the global compact car architecture if Opel wasn't going to use it? And why else would the Opel Astra sedan and Cobalt sedan be identical?

^ I think I can tell it by the door design, here are the cars in chronological order:

Opel/Vauxhall/Holden/Chevrolet Astra Classic:

Chevrolet Cobalt:

Opel/Vauxhall/Holden New Astra:

^ Pics are better than words on this one.

A good thing it went unmetioned, as it isn't sold anymore; and that was a last gen car.

^ I know, it was a complete flop (except in the racing scene). I was just giving an illustration of the Astra Classic came out as a coupe too.

Which would have no market in America.

^ No market? Well how about the Eos, Sebring, C70, and not to mention GM's own G6. It would be a good alternative for those mentioned above, although it would be expensive.

The entire Zeta platform and rebadging the cars for America was his idea from the start, as was the rebadging of the Monaro.

^ Before the Monaro, Caddy's Catera came up first, was I know it is based on the Opel/Vauxhall Omega in which is also based on the Commodore sedan. The Monaro (aka. VXR8 and the GTO) is a shortened version of the sedans above. I loved the idea of bringing the Holden's in Stateside, too bad not much people grabbed on the GTO, in which I like the way it drives.

Opel/Vauxhall Omega:

Holden VZ Commodore:

Cadillac Catera:

Holden Monaro:

Vauxhall VXR 500/550:

Pontiac GTO 5.7/6.0:

^ Sorry for going off-topic on the GTO part.

 

[YSSMAN]

Who wants video of what sounds like the 3.6L DI CTS on the 'Ring?

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

^ It sounds really nice from a YouTube screen. Nice find YSS. 👍

-> It seems like they want to go with Infiniti of making loud (ie. musical) exhaust notes. All these raves makes me itch, I would like to test drive this car by the time it comes out. So I can make my own assumptions, this is too much eye candy for me to handle.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm getting overly eager for the car, and I'm actually rather surprised that I haven't seen one rolling this way (given the distance between my home and the factory where they are built).

I'm still interested in the elusive final price...

 

[TopHat]

I wonder how quick this thing'll be...

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> I really don't care how fast it is going to be, that a given already. I'd like to see on will it handle and respond on corners, plus give the car a very close look. I really do hope I won't get dissapointed when I see it on person.

 

[Blackbird.]

Except for the wheels and maybe the color that thing is drop dead gorgeous!

 

[YSSMAN]

Test with some deets!

Car and Driver's full-test of the 2008 Cadillac CTS 3.6 FE3.

The Highs: Well-sorted chassis, bold exterior design, lots of passenger space, the best interior yet from GM

The Lows: Still-unsatisfying manual transmission, two-ton weight, could use a more supportive seat option

The Verdict: Cadillacs continue to get better-looking and more impressive

The (simple) Deets:

Base MSRP (est): $34,000
As-Tested (est): $42,000
Curb Weight: 4032 lbs
Distribution: F52.5, R47.5

Engine: 3.6L 24V direct-injection V6 with DOHC and variable intake and exaust timing
Redline: 7000 RPM
Horsepower: 304 BHP @ 6300 RPM
Torque: 273 lb-ft @ 5200 RPM

Fuel Mileage: 2008 EPA Rated 17 City, 26 Highway

0-60 MPH: 5.8 seconds
0-100 MPH: 15.5 seconds
Quarter-Mile: 14.6 seconds @ 97 MPH
Top Speed: 155 MPH (drag limited)

Skidpad: 0.86g (Cadillac's claim)
Lane-Change: N/A (weather did not permit testing)
Braking 70-0 MPH: N/A (weather did not permit testing)

​

Very impressive. Things are certainly looking up for my boys in Detroit, and I couldn't be any more proud that we build them just a few minutes from my home. I'm looking forward to seeing the car in person and (hopefully) taking one out for a drive.

 

[McLaren]

That dark grey is apparently, is the only color that makes the grill design look good. Anything else I've seen so far, is just ugly. I can't believe GM decided to Audify the CTS grill and make it gigantic. Only difference is, the outline of the Audi grill isn't that ugly.

For clarification, I'm talking about this.

The fact they decided to set the grill back and off-set...just kills any reason for me to consider the CTS-V regardless of how powerful it'll ever be.

 

[YSSMAN]

I (partially) agree on the color thing. I've seen silver/gray in person and it ruins the entire front-end of the car. I personally like darker colors shown so far, particularly the black and the dark-red pre-pros that were shown off a few months ago. But, I already like the grille, as I find it quite distinctive by comparison to others in it's class.

My biggest problem comes with the weight of the car, a few bits over 4000 lbs. Considering that the Pontiac G8 will weigh in about the same, despite its larger size (I believe it to be the case), thats a problem. Between it an the new C-class from Mercedes, which weighs in just-shy of 3700 lbs, it makes the Cadillac seem all that much larger. Then again, I guess it *technically* is supposed to be compared to the 5-er and E-class, but for pricing purposes, I think most of us are going to compare it to the 3-er and the C-class.

I'm excited for the car. I'm hoping to give it the detailed once-over as soon as the local dealer gets their first in. If the reports of a better interior than the new C-class is true, according to Car and Driver, that must be a first for GM...

 

[Kent]

Looks like a really cool car.
I'd love to drive the new model although I wonder how much of a difference there would really be?
👍

 

[YSSMAN]

Well it is a new chassis, but it is only just a few shades larger than the outgoing CTS. The GM engineers on the project said that the FE3 suspension basically started out where the previous CTS-V left off, while the FE2 suspension should be fairly similar to the outgoing CTS "sport" setup. The FE1 option is pretty much for blue-hairs.

My most calculations, I believe this CTS with the more powerful engine takes the older 3.6 non-DI model to the cleaners. Its faster, handles better, and overall is apparently more rewarding to drive. Although I'm sure the 4000 lb curb weight doesn't necessarily help at all.

 

[///M-Spec]

My wife informed me over the weekend she's interested in this car. I guess she's tired of the Murano.

We'll probably start sniffing around for deals in the spring.


M

 

[Jim Prower]

I'd like to test drive one, but I wonder how the Cadillac dealer would react when I pull up in an '88 Nova...

 

[YSSMAN]

...Not any better than me in my '96 Jetta...

Although, around here they're usually pretty nice about stuff like that if you talk with them a while about the cars. Must be because they're so used to everyone just buying them because they're American.

 

[JCE]

I love it - everything except GM's consistent desire to put the absolute ****tiest wheels on base model cars which typically get the most sales. Hey Buick, ever wonder why you didn't sell any Rendezvous Ultras? It's because the base ones all had HUBCAPS and no one was going to spend $40k on a car whose base model has hubcaps. Well aside from Evo drivers anyway.

Its 2008, why are hubcaps and steel wheels even still around? They can cost just as much as a cheap set of aluminum wheels.

Audi's designs don't work with simple polygons.

Looks like they tried to merge Audi with Infiniti to me...and they failed.

No way. Audi actually makes nice interiors. It's more of a complete infiniti/tribeca ripoff. This car looks bloated and pompous, much like most of its driver-base will be.

He's not saying Audi has crap interiors he's saying GM's interpretation of Audi designs are rubbish.

Who wants video of what sounds like the 3.6L DI CTS on the 'Ring?

Great noise...that is the engine noise is good not the rattles and squeeks. I just hope that was the camera equipment squeeking and rattling otherwise I'd be really disappointed.

My wife informed me over the weekend she's interested in this car. I guess she's tired of the Murano.

Err...this is a much better car than the CTS will ever be:

Hell, check out the new C-class while you're at it. That's certainly stepped up to be a really decent value now.