History records an era when a Cadillac was a no-compromise choice for well-heeled individuals seeking perfection. I remember the original import-fighting Seville’s refreshing blend of global proportions with acres of unabashed Cadillac style. What followed—neglect and shameless down market downplays– left Cadillac oblivious to its former “Standard of the World” designation. So it’s no surprise that the latest STS, nee Seville, doesn’t deserve to wear the crested wreath.
The STS’s new grill evokes images of a polyester-clad used car salesman’s teeth-laden, insincere smile. The afterthought fender venti-ports are his suit. Other than that, there’s nothing memorable about the top-drawer Caddy’s sheetmetal. Sure, the watered-down cues from the last-gen CTS make for a handsome shape. But where the old CTS was a shot of Jägermeister to Johnny Walker entry-level luxo sedans, the STS’ conservative contours are a lukewarm bottle of piss.
In fact, the STS’ down market styling influences bring to mind of another silent reminder of GM’s ham-fisted product planning: the Oldsmobile Aurora. Both top-flight sedans paved the way for a new generation of American luxury. But the uber-Olds got a po-faced Alero makeover. Which nobody bought. Ditto the STS, without the plastic surgeon’s scalpel.
For all of GM’s talk of world-class interiors, the new-for-‘08 STS still has the shittiest cabin in its class. The vent registers’ flimsy actions are worthy of Aveo real estate. The console, while positively Malibuian, fails to coddle like the padded, stitched panels on the Lexus GS. The only touch-point more pedestrian than the door panel’s northern hemisphere: the hard plastic that envelops the gauge cluster, forcing the driver to make skin contact with Lumina-grade goodness with each activation of the keyless ignition system. This is a forty-five thousand dollar luxury car?
The STS’ leather looks, feels and smells worthy of the under-20k compact crowd. Even worse, front passengers get a flashback to the compromised floor pan of yesteryear’s Camaro: the bloated transmission tunnel pinches foot space and adds claustrophobia to an otherwise inhospitable atmos. If the sensory disappointments haven’t set a nail in the STS’ coffin, the flat and flaccid BOSE audio numbs your ears with eight over-hyped, underperforming drivers. Let’s be clear: if this Caddy’s interior could talk, it’d win TTAC’s Bob Lutz award.
Thankfully the STS’ respectable underpinnings hail from the GM sigma platform, which made the CTS an American hero. Too bad the dynamic dyslexia turns this platform’s inherent “FTW” attitude into a “WTF” blend of compromises. In true Detroit fashion that means the ride isn’t half bad for a sports sedan wannabe. The cruise is plush and confident, without the mack-daddy purpose of its DTS cousin. Pavement joints, potholes and parking lot speed bumps never stand a chance.
Which leads to the inevitable trade-off. Feed the STS a corner and you’re done; inescapable understeer and prodigious body roll are your partners in stupidity. The saving grace is a fairly neutral rear wheel-drive orientation– that feels like a milquetoast E-Class Merc at anything less than 8/10ths. Our tester’s all-wheel-drive added tenacious grip; white loafer-wearing snow birds will be thrilled.
The compromised Caddy gets worse under the hood. The STS’ standard-issue 3.6-liter V6 is hot for its direct-injected torque peak (at a sky-high 5200rpm). In other words, the engine creates a brand and model-dishonest torque curve; wafters needs not apply. Thankfully, the six-pot delivers the power in a strictly linear fashion. Miserably, the six-speed autobox’s oddly spaced one-two gear interrupts the smooth and righteous application of power.
Add this bewildered forward propulsion to the mixed bag suspension and you get an anticlimactic blend of an attention-seeking engine and buzz-killing corner-scrub. Much like the CTS, the STS needs the real American spirit generated by the small-block V8s found in far cheaper GM sedans.
In fairness, the STS has an impressive options list to compensate. The model offers everything from Magnaride dampeners, to a locking rear differential, to flashy Brembo stoppers. Some require the (sorely needed) Northstar V8 and a serious chunk of change. Or perhaps the supercharged STS V-series for a cool eighty grand? Didn’t think so.
On paper, the STS matches the imports at many hotly-contested price points. There’s the GS350-alternative discussed here, and an AMG E-class fighter up top. But the cheap bones of the STS V6 prove that this Caddy is out of its league, minor or major.
Rumor has it that RenCen is resolute: Caddy’s future lies downmarket. The STS is on deathwatch– making way for a hungry rookie with a soulful V8. The Hyundai Genesis could well be the STS re-incarnate, ready to punch the luxo-sedan market in the solar plexus. In theory, the STS coulda been a contender. But reality sucks, and the Cadillac STS’s irrelevance hits home at first glance. So if it’s on the chopping block, good riddance to bad rubbish.
[CarMax provided the vehicle reviewed, insurance and a tank of gas]
99 Comments on “2008 Cadillac STS V6 Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Let me be the first to say it…sad. Just sad. Though no huge fan of Caddy, this abomination just hurts to look at and read about. Any historical cred and panache that Caddy had has left the building…
1/5 stars – like RF’s Focus writeup. Time for him to return the favor?
The Chinese LWB SLS got the nicer interior, pics here.
Once again we all overlook the obvious….
GM is not trying to sell this car to me, you or most of the TTAC readership.
They are aiming this car at my retired parents living in Nebraska – and they are thrilled. Seriously.
We have been getting a lot of ex-Caddy owners coming in and checking out/buying the Lincoln MKS, and if this is all Cadillac has to offer, it is no reason why.
The only area the STS beats the MKS is power (RWD/AWD vs. FWD/AWD being a push as customers seem to go either way in their preference on this). But as the STS can’t even make use of the power due to the excessive body lean and roll, why bother?
Interior space, interior quality, standard features, trunk space, safety, and price all go to the Lincoln.
To be honest I hadn’t realized that the STS was this bad, I am surprised GM didn’t manage to incorporate any of what makes the CTS so good into it’s bigger brother.
yeesh… I fell in the love with the STS-V when it first showed up… Maybe the V6 is just that much worse?
To be honest, I am at the age and income where I want a car like this. That is to say, a relatively large family sedan with panache and COMFORT with alot of features and AWD. (I love Audi but have no time to constantly spend in the dealership)
I want to like the STS, I really do and when I get in one and drive it and hear and feel the power if the V8 or even the V6 DI with all the bells and whistles I am smitten.
Then I get out and look at the car and think, “Im a young man, I still have self respect, what am I thinking about”.
The thought of driving a Cadillac turns me off of the car and the thought of dealing with the problems of a Cadillac and the dealership experince is a total turn off.
The only Cady I would consider is a CTS V as it is one bad MOFO; the rest just make me look bad.
Is it wrong to be so shallow? AHHHH the light hurts my eyes.
Crappy interior or not…I would choose this over the Lincoln Taurus any day. RWD, V8 ALWAYS beats FWD, V6.
But I think it is funny that Hyundai can build a better luxury car (with the correct drive wheels, correct number of cylinders, and proper interior) than the Americans. GM has the RWD, V8 thing down…so at least it is a start.
RWD, V8 ALWAYS beats FWD, V6.
Except there is no V8 here.
Too bad the dynamic dyslexia turns this platform’s inherent “FTW” attitude into a “WTF” blend of compromises
Fine wordplay!
For this money, in this segment, pretending I’m in the target demographic, I’d probably have to give my money to a Passat 3.6 4motion or even a Toyota Avalon (if FWD suffices).
I don’t know. It seems like this is written by someone who hates the car rather than someone who writes about a bad car.
Anyhow, I won’t go to the build quality issue, maybe the price difference, even here in Europe between the STS and say the 5-Series explains it.
However I believe the AWD doesn’t do the car any favor. The RWD is a nice car to drive, even fun sometimes, mind the size, weight, and american ride setup. But AWD doesn’t do favors to any RWD car. Try any FWD Audi and you’ll love the quattro. Drive the 5-Series x-model and you’ll hate it. It’s brisk feeling and nimble handling vanishes, it’s fun-to-drive character is gone and all you’re left is a firm ride and straight-happy attitude.
The fact that this car has a lot of room for improvement is more than obvious, even sticking to its current price tag. However if Cadillac had to chose between a better built FWD luxury car and a car with acceptable quality and RWD, which one would you chose?
Ouch!
This is why I love TTAC and why they should do more of this.
And now add more group comparisons and it is complete.
The review:
Very factual, passionate, humorous, well written.
In short…everything I need in a auto review.
Sajeev…thanks for a job well done.
Alex Kambas
“The RWD is a nice car to drive, even fun sometimes, mind the size, weight, and american ride setup.”
Have you tried the Genesis V6? That car alone blows the STS into insignificance.
A Hyudai!
You cannot afford this level of work today.
1 star? 1?
As far off the mark as this car is, I think the rating is more of a way for TTAC to make a statement than it is an actual, honest assessment of the car itself.
Repeat after me: credibility, guys. It means something.
P71_CrownVic
I have driven both a lot, well twice each, and the FWD MKS is a far, far better car.
There are a lot of qualities both FWD and RWD bring to the table…each offering pros and cons …but one does not blow the other away.
RWD does help when weight is shifted back on take off, less parts and help in better weight distribution.
But FWD offers better space utilization and interior design options, economy and traction.
Personally, I hate the interior space lost from RWD.
The entire RACING SPORTS image of giant luxury cars is a marketing ploy aimed at men who think that they are boys and can brag about driving their 50K car hard into corners and down mountain roads!
Good Greif!
That whole sports/luxury is as stupid as an Off road Porsche!
Let’s get real and remember who we are.
Alex Kambas:
However if Cadillac had to chose between a better built FWD luxury car and a car with acceptable quality and RWD, which one would you chose?
I’d rather have a G8 with aftermarket front seats.
Sajeev, you realize that with RWD and a V8 this is the type of car you love the most, right?
How many stars would it get if it were the RWD V8 version and what would the review look like in that case?
I’m guessing it would be something like not a terrible car, just not good enough to compete with the best offered in this segment (which in Europe in this segment I would say would be the 5-series/A6).
Don’t get me wrong though, I’d never consider buying one, definitely not in the European market for obvious reasons, but also the interior, exterior, chassis, packaging, basically everything is subpar to competitors. Only with the V8 RWD it would be slightly less subpar I would think.
Keep the bad reviews coming. The result is a cliff-like depreciation that makes a one or two-year-old STS with a Northstar an incredible bargain. At $20K or so (check ebay), it’s a steal.
Having owned a CTS for the last few years, I have to say that the three Caddy dealer we have dealt with for service have all been quite good.
1 star? 1?
You bet it deserves one star. the Focus got one or two star because it was no better than an 05 or even an 02 model (except cheapened)
Again GM takes a bunch of good parts then puts them together in a dysfunctional way.
what is really funny is that it really shows that GM thinks it doing a swell job when other companies do much more with less.
The exterior styling worked better before the clumsy refresh, especially with the optional 18-inch wheels.
The regular STS has two different suspensions, the base suspension and a sport suspension, and the latter is much firmer.
For reasons known only to Cadillac, with the V6 you CANNOT get the sport suspension with AWD, while with the V8 you MUST get the sport suspension with AWD.
No doubt Sajeev would have enjoyed driving this car more with the sport suspension. Though of course that does nothing to fix the exterior or interior.
No reliability info on this one yet. Maybe in February.
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
When the STS was initially introduced in 2005 I liked the design a great deal. It was introduced with the excellent “Let’s Dance/Breakthrough ads” and got generally good reviews from all publications, even the testy Consumer Reports.
That said the biggest problem with the car was its lack of presence, inside and out. By making the CTS too large for the 3-Series, C Class crowd, there was no real reason to buy the ever so slightly larger, much more expensive STS. Additionally the V8 only has a handful of horses more than the V6.
Lastly, in typical Detroit fashion, they failed to market and update the car sufficiently. It seems that they can only keep current on one or two cars at a time max.
Very harsh. Some of it definitely deserved. The interior for instance is something I would expect from a car costing far less. Aside from that, I think much of the review misses the mark by most objective standards. I think the styling is pretty good, but the car suffers from being upstaged by the new CTS, which is admittedly, a much better car and much better value.
This review should silence the TTAC faithful who were upset about too many recent good reviews and all together too many stars hitting the net. The best and brightest called for kill, TTAC delivers by bashing the automaker its reader’s love to hate. Well done.
It would be interesting to see actual performance data on the STS vs some of its similarly equipped rivals. Just so you can demonstrate how bad it is, or just how much of the review we should attribute to sensationalism.
Wow Sajeev, you really ripped this Caddy a new one.
I don’t think the STS is all that bad, because it’s far better than the Seville it replaced earlier and perhaps Caddy didn’t want to really play hardball with the performance Germans (maybe that was GM’s problem all along).
Why would anyone spring for the V8 when the V6 is so close in power?
The fact that a Hyundai can blow the doors off this Cadillac (the Caddy being on sale far longer than the Hyundai notwithstanding) is testament to how obsolete the STS has become. I still think it’s a fine car in its own right, but just as GM missed the mark slightly with the first CTS and made up for it in the 2nd gen version, I think they’ll fix the STS/DTS into a world class car.
I hope…
GM’s lurch back to RWD for Cadillacs is not doing the brand any favors. The target market for this car is not hot to trot for rear wheel drive. Lutz and fellow fanatics might be, but the actual customers are rather lukewarm on the idea.
For a long time the Seville SLS/STS occupied a unique and profitable market niche. Now the STS is a dead model walking.
I rented a DTS about a year ago. If the interior is half as bad as that then the single star was warranted.
Owning a big, plush Cadillac used to be the goal of hard-working guys in this country. Keep plugging away, take care of your family, saving money, and one day your reward would be a Caddy in the driveway.
The STS and the DTS should be re-focused to this ideal. These cars should be a reward, and not a consolation prize. The 55-yr-old empty nester deserves a reward, so give him one.
Great review but I have one problem. You gave the car one star when it deserves NONE, it’s a damn joke. You guys seriously need to consider a catagory like “no star deserved” just for cars like this.
I drove and rode in one of these back to back with a 528xi and I couldn’t believe they were competing against eachother, especially in price. It was a 2006 model so other than the DI engine this thing hasn’t changed one bit from the junk I drove back then. The interior review is spot on, cheap compared to a Sonata. And the drive was even worse, felt like I was pulling a 2 ton anchor on a 10 foot chain. It lacked any dynamics with the AWD, and the 5-series AWD was a jem compared to the Caddy. I could drift through hard turns, it was very predictable, controllable and fast. The Caddy would understeer and fight you if you got any feedback at all, rolled and had the shittiest brakes, a land yacht like our DeVille.
They should have killed this model when the new CTS came out, it’s embarassing to have them in the same showroom. GM is clueless how bad this makes them look, like the rest of the junk they keep peddling.
I really want to like this new STS. I’m already rooting for it having owned a 1983 Coupe Deville and 1994 Eldorado. It’s a big improvement over the previous WWT (wrong wheel drive aka FWD) version, but I understand what Sajeev is getting at. When I sat in it at the Detroit NAIAS I thought, “It’s OK, just not fancy, special, Cadillac enough.”
All this aside, I buy cars based on their drivetrains, not looks. I would gladly pay $15k for a used STS V8.
To reiterate: the 2008 STS to get (if you’re getting one) is probably the RWD V6 with the 1SC package. MUCH better (if still not outstanding) handling than the tested car. With the sport suspension included in the 1SC (V6) and 1SG (V8) packages, this car feels very German. Of course, the ride quality takes a hit.
Dan Neil just skidmarked his shorts over the CTS-V. It’s a hint at what the STS could be. Or a coda.
@Buick61 :
1 star? 1?
Repeat after me: credibility, guys. It means something.
EXACTLY! You’ve missed the point of the review, but by dissing the rating you’ve proven why the car has to get the 1 star.
In order to maintain credibility, you have to call it like you see it. If you soft pedal your position because you want to be nice to the company that makes it, you lose your credibility.
Have you been in this monstrosity? Have you felt the materials? My dad, a 37yr GM lifer and UAW retiree, could not defend this car and bought the CTS instead. And he’s a lifetime Caddy lover!
That said, I’ve often thought that there should be some sort of definition to the star ratings. That is, an example vehicle for each group – one bad, one good. The bad one would be the 1 star example of what not to do and the good one would set the bar. Kind of like what happened when Audi came out with the A4 back in ‘02 (?’01?) that set the standard for interiors. That way all reviewers and readers would have a reference point.
An acquaintance of mine had one of these as a rental up in Monterey for MotoGP this summer, but with the V8.
I didn’t drive the car but that gave me all the more time to gaze around at the ill-fitting interior bits, cheap materials, lousy leather, and cramped accommodations. The car was also frightfully noisy, particularly when riding in the back seat.
I built a comparable STS online and the price was somewhere well north of $55,000, which caught me off guard; this car just isn’t worth that money. I think an ES350 is more nicely appointed inside to be honest. The STS doesn’t even feel as nice as the same brand’s entry-level car, the CTS.
The key fob was neat though. Go GM!
Sajeev, I think you’re a brilliant writer. Not just one of TTAC’s best, but one of the best auto writers on the Web.
But I have to hop off the bus on your opinion of this car. I admittedly am of the pampered-tushie persuasion, but I’ve driven this car, and I was much more impressed than you were.
Two facts about this car completely change its real-world usefulness:
1) Any RWD car doesn’t work in the Midwest, Plains or New England, and this car is available with AWD.
2) This car instantly becomes a 100% better value if you have the sense to buy it late-model used at up to $15,000 off. At that price, it descends into the ‘08 TL or Lexus ES class, where it immediately becomes a much more formidable competitor.
When I drove the car, I thought its power was ample and fluid, and its basic road behavior very good — sort of like a softer, quieter Infiniti M. Sajeev did nail the basic turnoffs inside, along with antiquated controls and a shameful lack of rear-sear room. But if you were shorter than me and didn’t carry passengers, it had a lot of pluses.
One other aside: I see at least twice in the test and comments here that the ultimate indictment of STS is that it can’t measure up to the Hyundai Genesis. I hope the recognition comes, sooner rather than later, that you could say this about most cars, even expensive ones, and it’s more a salute to Hyundai than a condemnation of Cadillac.
Wow, what a harsh review. I’ve never driven one so I trust that all your well-written judgements are fair, but I actually dig the design. I think the CTS edgey styling really works on this car, and whenever I see it on the road (not too often) it turns my head.
A bigger problem for the STS than most of the comments here is just how superior the CTS is. And the CTS is a big car, similar in most dimensions and only a few inches shorter. So basically, if you kinda want an STS, get a CTS!
Caddy’s 49 – 56 were the Detroit standard for class automobiles. The 49 with the V8 OHV revolutionized the industry. Driving Miss Daisy featured a 55 and 56 Caddy. To be Somebody, a Caddy then was the car. Elvis and all. In 1949 I happened on Bob Hope exiting a bank side entrance in Easton Pa into a black Caddy. After the mid 50’s Dagmars and all that ostentatious junk.
People who are moving up from old 90’s cars to newer models will find the interior and the tech features of the STS FANTASTIC.
Especially retirees.
I liked the STS when I tested it back during its launch, but now, its in a sea of better cars.
TRUTH ABOUT CARS SHOULD DO A COMPARISON OF THE STS vs. the LINCOLN MKS.
I can’t believe American auto’s have gotten to a point where they are releasing BORING V6 engines and HYUNDAI has damn near released a cheap V8 LEXUS clone.
At least one comment above defends the STS with the logic that after depreciation it becomes an excellent competitor to lesser vehicles. What harsher indictment of the car could there be than this?
To clarify, if the only ways a vehicle becomes competitive are knocking 15k off the MSRP or comparing them to cars in another class is that vehicle not an abject failure?
I agree with tonycd that Sajeev is a great writer, him and Jonny are two of my favorite automotive journalists. I do think he was a little too harsh on this car though. The styling is a little bland but nowhere near the disaster of the most recent 5-Series (although describing the STS as “a lukewarm bottle of piss” was hilarious), and I’ve ridden in one, and the interior isn’t that bad either. It seems like a decent, but unspectacular effort that is undeserving of such harsh criticism.
And here I thought Sajeev was a fan of big RWD American iron? I do wonder who buys these things new however…
My grandfather loves this car.
It has fantastic interior.
I’m with thetopdog (unbelievably great hot dog joint in Berkeley,CA by the way if you’re ever in the neighborhood.)
A couple of years ago when I was unhappily in possession of a GS300 and my dad had (still has) an STS, we swapped cars for the weekend. We each agreed afterward that we preferred our own wheels, but that the differences weren’t all that significant.
On interiors, Lexus gets the nod for coming up with the design that Cadillac copied and certainly better quality materials, but all in all if you’re not a rubbing your hands across the dash kinda guy, the bottom line on each is mostly boring. With the Lexus losing points for annoying quirks (what’s with that funky little drawer to the left of the steering wheel that keeps self-opening and banging your knee?)
As to exteriors, each of us preferred his own car’s look, but again, bottom line is mostly boring. And I have to say there’s a new STS that parks in my garage surrounded by the usual suspect BMW’s, Audi and Mercedes, and it seems to fit in just fine, maybe better than its predecessor. Big schnoz’s are in.
Dad’s car is a V8, so power felt better in the Caddy. Ride and handling in both cars stink. We had the Caddy on some winding roads around Napa and it was certainly no worse than the nauseating float of the Lexus in similar situations.
My Lexus is long gone and I’m glad to be back in something small, fast and uncomfortable. I’m obviously not a big fan of this type of car, but having driven the Caddy, Lexus, Mercedes E, Audi 6, and BMW’s 5 and 7, apart from the 5 the similarities overwhelm the differences.
Easily the biggest sedan disappointment from GM in the last ten years.
The only people I see buying these are the Buick retiree crowd here. Everyone else gets the Escalade or CTS.
Having driven a new STS and DTS I actually prefer the DTS. It’s less ugly inside and out and wafts better, as a Cadillac should.
It seems like this is written by someone who hates the car rather than someone who writes about a bad car.
This.
That said, I don’t think this car should exist. If the CTS was a foot shorter and 400 lbs lighter, the STS would make sense. As is, there’s no good reason to buy an STS over a CTS.
So, Sajeev….I guess you didn’t like it, then, eh?
If this vitriol was aimed at an author or commentator, you’d be banned for violating the no-flame policy.
Just sayin’…..
While Sajeev’s review may sound harsh, judging by the real world pricing of the STS, he is probably right. Local dealerships are selling the STS for less than $35K (and $34K for the DTS) but are not discounting the CTS by much. To me that just confirms that the CTS is Caddy’s only competitive product.
NoSubstitute :
I also had a GS, a 2nd Gen GS400. The reference to the little drawer by your knee suggests that yours was a 3rd gen. I liked the GS, but I was also pretty unimpressed by it. Like you said, it wasn’t much better or worse than the STS. It was also way more expensive to maintain/unreliable than the name “Lexus” suggests. Dealer service was incredible though
I too have gone from the GS to a small, uncomfortable car, which is the way I like it. I never really wanted the GS in the first place, but it was the best car I could get for the $20,000 I had to spend at the time (mine was obviously bought used). My C6 Vette fits my personality a lot better though (and as blasphemous as this may sound, I think I enjoy the Vette interior asmuch as the GS interior), and I couldn’t be happier with it. What did you get after getting rid of the GS?
Sajeev and I actually have very similar taste in cars. With that said, I don’t think that there is even one iota of presumption that either of us would remotely consider a car like the STS.
The styling alone relegates it to those who are either in the very conservative, very old demographic… or those who work for corporations that get absolutely sweet lease deals from GM. Both of these segments are dying at this point. Even the traveling sales people who once enabled the DTS and Deville to soldier on well past it’s point of competitiveness are now looking at Hyundais, Buicks, and Toyotas.
A few months before the final axe falls, the STS V6 will likely be going for around the mid-30’s. The STS is to GM what the Amanti now represents to Kia. A dead end.
Steven Lang: The styling alone relegates it to those who are either in the very conservative, very old demographic…
Which is an interesting take, because the Art & Science look used on this car was supposed to represent a radical new direction for Cadillac, and appeal to a younger, hipper crowd.
I’ve read that Bob Lutz “toned down” the design for this car before it was introduced. Perhaps his tweaks watered down the design too much…
What’s more ominous for Cadillac (and, by extension, GM) is that after all of the billions spent by GM to bring the new-generation of Cadillacs to market, the only models that have really succeeded are the CTS and short-wheelbase Escalade (while the DTS still appeals to the older, more conservative buyer). And Cadillac is still nowhere near being accepted as a top-tier, non-exotic luxury brand (with Lexus, BMW, Mercedes).
Critics keep saying that Cadillac is ahead of Lincoln, which is true from a product standpoint, but it seems to me that GM spent a lot more money on Cadillac than Ford did on Lincoln, and GM really doesn’t have all that much more to show for it.
Yes, unfortunately that is true.
Lincoln is a non-starter for virtually anyone under 40. Volvo is the predominant marque for that age demographic… as it applies to the two Ford luxury divisions.
Personally I would have no problem buying a Cadillac. But the only ones that have interested me over the last several years are the CTS and the SRX. Even those two have backs which are a bit too frumpy for my taste, and the materials are a tier below most of the competition.
thetopdog :
What did you get after getting rid of the GS?
What I always get. Another in my (hopefully) endless series of Porsche 911’s (that makes number 4).
But I did check out the C6 ‘Vette before repeating myself and was surprised and impressed. I guess you and I are a touch less fastidious than the blogger norm on automotive interior decorating, as I found the Corvette’s insides to be more than just fine. Except for the deal killing no back seat for the basset hound.
Of course my standards are shockingly low. My ‘99 911 had the stock base interior in a queasy institutional grey. There cannot be a new car on the U.S. market today with lower quality plastics or inferior fit and finish. We’re talking serious upgrading necessary to meet Playskool production criteria. Yet I don’t recall any of that dampening my enthusiasm a whit, nor did it seem to discourage passengers from offering to swap transportation.
Dull, dull, dull. Looks like it could be a successor to the Monte Carlo. GM is mistaken making the Cadillac downmarket. If you want a cheaper car then buy a Chevy. Again they are blurring brand identification. That picture showing the front leg room and that huge center tunnel is shocking. How will the target demographic’s wingtips fit into that space? This thing’s grill is cheesy, the headlights are from the ‘80s, the turn signals and fog lamps look like add ons, the tail lights are cheapy, devoid of style, the fender vent looks awkward. It is poorly done