I’ve driven both cars, somewhat frequently and the vents don’t even turn in uniform on the Focus because they are just that cheap. The vent registers in the STS aren’t very much different than what’s found in Mercedes, BMW, Audi, etc.

Now I drive a 2005 1SF (v8 RWD) model, and the handling of the car is most excellent. The new v6 engine offers similar performance, which is competitive with any car in the class — the older v6, not so much. I only test drove 1SF and 1SG models however, so perhaps the lower trims do not ride as nicely — but keep in mind the base models sell for quite a bit cheaper than the competition as well. Other cars that I test drove and were the Mercedes Benz E350, BMW 5 series, Audi A6, and Volvo S80, but the STS definitely drove at least as nicely, had more power available, arguably the best audio (very close either way) and all of the options and in many cases then some. Again, I only drove 1SF and 1SG models.

I feel this review doesn’t do this car justice. The STS is not a bad car at all — most legitimate reviews at least recognize that the folks at Cadillac have made a huge jump in the right direction, and the STS is still a good offering even if there’s other cars that they like better.

Sure, the STS has wood trim, leather trim and shiny metallic accents, but their design/placement/frequency of use/presentation is sub-par. E-class, 5-series, M-series, GS-series, whatever…they all excel over the GM product.

But Phil, grab one of the STS’ vent registers: cheap and flimsy! My Focus SE tester had higher quality vents, and that’s inexcusable.

I just can’t see it. The Merc interior has more chrome than the STS-V, but that’s a design choice. The V has textured matte aluminum, which looks more appropriate to me. Leather? It’s all pretty much the same until you get to an interior made in Italy. Yeah, a Maserati puts all the rest to shame in leather.

I’ve given many line items to make the point, but here’s another: the wooden “roll top desk” door on the MB’s console is another justification for its price.

I dislike roll-top covers in cars and give demerits for them. They break, trap dirt, eventually buzz and are generally more troublesome . Where I do fault the Caddy interior is carpet. All the V cars and the performance luxury upgrades below them should have considerably better carpet, at Jag level or better.

Phil

There’s nothing even close to that in the STS to justify its asking price, V6 or V8 or blown V8. There’s always something better (CTS or otherwise) at each price point.

Not having been in it, I have no comment on the actual sensory experience of being inside.

Sometimes the pics are all you need. Its pretty clear that the extra craftsmanship, extra parts and richer design in those pics makes the Caddy on par with its foreign compeition.

The Chinese interior looks good in photographs. Not having been in it, I have no comment on the actual sensory experience of being inside. So that’s moot here in the US. I don’t share reverence for the modern Mercedes and certainly don’t count their current interiors among their competitive assets. If you think an E class AMG interior is “far superior” to that in the STS-V, it’s hard to argue against a subjective assessment but I much prefer the understated, straightforward STS-V interior, including its materials. We disagree on the styling. The E class looks dated, vaguely cheap, and derivative to me, while the STS-V is sharp, upright, clean and confident. Also subjective. What I can say is that I never considered nor bought a car for snob appeal so I have no idea what that’s worth to someone, though where I live Mercedes cars are far too common to have any vestige of snob appeal remaining. A Maserati Quattroporte is the new minimum entry for snob appeal in sedans. Everything under it is just mass production.

Phil

Please explain your logic. But I would be impressed if anyone levies the blame (for Detroit’s corporate-level stupidity) to the likes of me. There are much better scapegoats in this world, ya know.

—————————-
Phil Ressler : There’s nothing wrong with an STS that isn’t addressed by the STS-V. What’s $40K more to get the car right and to get the right car? Seriously.

Maybe if it had the Chinese interior. But since it doesn’t, and the AMG E-class is within spitting distance I can’t see buying a better performing STS without the added snob appeal, a far superior interior and arguably better styling (that justifies its price) of the Merc. I vaguely remember the E55 AMG stacked up better than the STS-V in performance, and I’m guessing the new E63 is still worth the added cost.

—————————-
The interior has leather and alcantara everywhere and the woods are tastefully dramatic, the seats are firmer.

I’ve sat in several at the dealer and at car shows. Still can’t hold a candle to its competition, or the Chinese Caddy.

—————————-
But with the current CTS elbowed out inside and amped-up in fit, finish and visual drama, there’s no reason for an STS below, say, $65,000, and certainly no place for one with a V6.

True dat.

—————————-
The upcoming CTS-V is going to be a sensational car, no doubt, built up from the basic goodness engineered into this car.

Which goes back to my concerns about the STS-V considering how inadequate the V6 model is relative to its competition.

—————————-
Stick to that at nothing less than $65K and suddenly STS not only makes sense; you have a real Cadillac in your hands.

Not sure I’d agree with that–because I still hold Caddys to the “Standard of the World”–but the $65k Caddy isn’t a one star car.

You should re-think this. In Los Angeles for example, the current Cadillacs have street cred the 25 – 45 y.o. demographic that is doing well, with the DTS retaining interest from the Caddy cruiser seniors. The V cars skew between them. As for the dealership experience, it might vary by location but both the purchase and subsequent service experiences have been exemplary for me. In fact, it couldn’t be — nor have been — better.

Phil

The STS-V gets the much cleaner mesh V grille, and an overall cleaner, leaner stance with the right wheels, tires and wheel-well fit. The interior has leather and alcantara everywhere and the woods are tastefully dramatic, the seats are firmer. And you get that glorious 4.4L hand-wrenched Supercharged Northstar mill. Perhaps the naturally-aspirated Northstar should be a lower-cost option. But with the current CTS elbowed out inside and amped-up in fit, finish and visual drama, there’s no reason for an STS below, say, $65,000, and certainly no place for one with a V6. A 2Mode hybrid variant would be cool. Which brings me to the CTS.

I just spent a few days in a base CTS while having some service done on my XLR-V. Overall, the new CTS is a best-in-class four door. The interior is fully competitive for design, materials, fit and finish, and it continues Cadillac’s excellent sense for UI and technology integration in their passenger cars. Even in base mode with all-season tires and a V6, the car is dynamically precise, responsive and stable. The structure is stiff and my loaner, with 20,000 hard miles on it, was completely, utterly, free of rattles or any other extraneous noises. The upcoming CTS-V is going to be a sensational car, no doubt, built up from the basic goodness engineered into this car.

However, the CTS also vividly demonstrates that GM cannot meet its market requirements through Chevrolet and Cadillac alone. The ignored middle would simply be too wide. Chevy and Cadillac don’t meet at a common boundary.

Simply put, the base CTS as configured today is not and should not be a Cadillac, but it deserves a place nevertheless. No Cadillac should have a manual seat position adjuster on the passenger side. No Cadillac of its size and mass should have less than 300hp. I’m not even sure any Cadillac should be delivered without a navigation system. No Cadillac should lack seat heaters. Coolers optional. In today’s market, no Cadillac should sell for under, say, $42,000. But such cars that do fall below these thresholds are more than Chevies.

With the V’s suspension, accouterments and cleaner appearance, the CTS would be a stunning car in lesser-powered form. A similar level of trim execution but in a softer-touch Touring option is also warranted. The new version of the CTS is almost roomy enough to obviate the current STS. But not quite.

Much separates CTS and STS, still. All said and done, the excellent CTS nevertheless feels like a modern origami sheet metal car. STS feels more carved from billet. CTS’ attitude is striver, like Mercedes C and E classes, but STS is quietly confident, secure, done with social climbing. STS-V particularly is tasteful and unadorned. It’s also unfettered, and for those who take the trouble to drive it, a distinct alternative to 7 Series and high E/low S class. STS. It’s roomier enough over CTS to feel more stately. It’s more solid feel takes it upmarket from the smaller brother. In V trim its handling and dynamics are incisive and blessed with the ideal quality of driving smaller than it is. The car is confidently handsome and modern, not derivative. Sure, in current Cadillac design idiom STS could sport more visual drama. Look for that in the next one. Meanwhile this STS gets noticed for what it isn’t as well as for what it is.

STS has no business packing a V6 heart. It needs more torque, and it needs the music of the V8. It really needs the 4.4L SC. Unfortunately, Sajeev reviewed the STS that shouldn’t be, the one that should be an Oldsmobile or Buick if wrapped in a different body. He should have reviewed the STS that is wholly Cadillac — the V. V8 only, n/a and s/c options in the V interior and dynamic equipment. Stick to that at nothing less than $65K and suddenly STS not only makes sense; you have a real Cadillac in your hands.

Phil

That’s shameful especially for this price-point ($40-$60+). Without the nav system it looks like a sub $20-grand interior.

The front drive lets you have big bench seats and no floor hump. ROOM FOR SIX MAN! Even the S series doesn’t have that!

Take the DTS – put six inches of space in front of the firewall so it LOOKS RWD, put another five inches into rear seat legroom.

Bingo 125″ wheelbase “flagship” that has no Nurburgring (?) delusions of grandeur.

Now where’s Joe Isuzu when you need him???

Back when the first pictures of the STS were released I made them my wallpaper. I really wanted to like it. It has RWD and an available V8 that combined create my preferred drivetrain. But my hopes were dashed after driving one for an hour or so. The interior is piss-poor and I felt that the seating position was too low below the window-line creating an uncomfortable, almost claustrophobic, atmosphere. In terms of the drive, while I liked the dynamics, and especially the brakes, I had a sense that I was driving an American version of a Mercedes-Benz – not a Cadillac.

I too drove an E class extensively, and would have bought one, but I was frightened by their poor reputation for reliability, and not reassured by the M-B warranty that only covers lubricated parts, both compounded by questionable dealer service. But most importantly M-B offered me a dealership that didn’t understand that a competitive price is also a factor in a buying decision.

So in the end, I bought a DTS. A decision that I could never have predicted based on a paper analysis. But the reality is that the DTS has a far better interior than the STS, V8 power, comfortable and quiet ride, plus solid warranty and dealer service. Of all the models that I drove – and I drove ten potential candidates from five brands – I felt the most comfortable and relaxed in the DTS. The icing on the cake was a dealership that understood that they were in competition for my business, notwithstanding my long family association with GM.

Message to GM, if even I – a lifetime GM loyalist – cannot bring himself to buy an STS, then who can?

Would I pay 52 large for it? no. Then again i would not pay 52 large for any car.

However, i have noted that they are cheap as dirt used. I would consider it for 30 large which is what they for used one year old.

I am not familiar with the STS, to i suspect it is kinda like the dts.

My complaints are these: The dashboard plastics are hard.

Thats about it.

That said, I dunno how you all do it…slush, muddy slush, ice, salty roads, etc. :)

I managed to get through last winter in Boston with my C6 as my daily driver. With summer tires on it (because I couldn’t find 285/35/19 or similar winter tires anywhere). The tires were also nearly bald. I got stuck once, and had to call a taxi to take me to work twice the entire winter. No accidents or near-misses either (full disclosure: my friend did lend me his Civic for a few weeks while he went to India to get married). As you said, handing a RWD vehicle in the winter is not a big deal for a competent driver, unless you live out in the country where the roads aren’t plowed or something

RWD + great snow tires (small to medium width) + some additional weight in the trunk you can get thru a winter where I live (Pittsburgh, PA). Although, you would not stand a chance with a C6 and no snow tires. Even with snow tires (too wide). Why? The hills. Finding level ground here is all but impossible. And there are HUGE inclines. Everywhere. Watch ‘Striking Distance’ (Bruce Willis) during the car chase scenes. You’ll see what I mean… Matter of fact, a buddy of mine had a 350Z and it was all but ‘un-useable’ if any snow/ice was on the ground. Poor guy couldn’t even get out of his inclined driveway. That being said, we usually only see about 15 days during a winter where the roads are snow covered. So you can always get a ride those days or buy a $500 beater.

BTW – My Viper would give the Enzo a run for the worst winter car. Huge torque, stick only, 335 tires in rear, front engine (less weight over rear wheels than mid-engine Enzo). Given, I haven’t tried it yet ;)

I could go on and on (and on and on and on…) with the weak points of the STS’ interior, and I’ve tried to forget that car for weeks now!