By on June 21, 2010

What is luxury? In the American car market, that question doesn’t have an easy answer. Driver-focused performers like BMW’s 3-series sell well here, but so do feature-loaded versions of mass market sedans, like the Lexus ES. Blinged-out baroque still has its adherents, but as the Napa Valley hotel where the Cadillac CTS Coupe was launched proves, a more subtle, sophisticated version of luxury is gaining popularity as well, differentiated by the use of recycled materials and environmentally-friendly technologies. So where in this fragmented and changing category does the CTS Coupe belong?

The last time Cadillac sold a traditional coupe, it bore the heritage-laden Eldorado nameplate which, by its last year of sales in 2002, was grasping at the tatters of a long, once-proud legacy. The Eldorado name may not have launched the “Personal Luxury Coupe” segment (this honor goes to the Ford Thunderbird), but by the dawn of the new millenium, it was keeping the old-school, front-drive, waft-all-day luxury coupe flame alive. Barely.

In the eight years since the Eldorado got lost in the shuffle, the CTS nameplate has ushered in a new era at Cadillac. With the return of rear-wheel-drive and concessions to performance and dynamics, the brand seemed desperate to leave its legacy of large, squishy touring coupes behind. Unfortunately, this meant abandoning the coupe segment altogether, leaving a fundamental element of the brand unrealized for nearly a decade.

Until now. After a few bankruptcy-related false starts, the CTS Coupe that debuted at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show is now sitting in the forecourt of a $450/night hotel, looking nearly unchanged from concept form, and entirely at home. Which is to say, it looks good. In dark colors, it’s Darth Vader meets Don Draper: a symmetrically-creased exercise in sleek, bunker-windowed coupe-dom. From the shortened overhangs, to the faster windshield, to the langheck echoes of the gracefully curving C-pillars, Cadillac has taken the CTS design to what feels like its logical conclusion.

And though Cadillac aptly calls its Coupe the “ultimate expression” of its Art-and-Science styling, there are some pleasing echoes of Cadillac’s past baked into the design. The proportions are classic “Personal Luxury” coupe: kicked-back cabin, long doors, bold face, clean rear-quarter. Viewed side-on, there’s even a hint of Mitchell-era Eldorado about the angular C-pillar, and the rear-deck’s three peaked taillights (the middle of which apparently generates downforce) are as close as a Cadillac’s come to having tailfins since Mitchell took over. Only the shortness of the front and rear overhangs, and the almost cartoonish ratio of steel to glass give the proportions a more purposeful, modern feel.

The promise of this neo-classical look is, of course, that this Cadillac Coupe will do things that no two-door Caddy has done before. Though the two-inch lower roof and sharply-raked windshield are purely aesthetic changes, the shortened overhangs and one-inch wider rear track are meant to do more than introduce a pugnacious profile and gentle, organically-swelling rear fender bulges. Along with a revised axle ratio (3.73:1 replacing the sedan’s 3.42:1) and thicker rear stabilizer bar, these changes were made in hopes that the odd auto journalists might rehabilitate the old “Caddy that Zigs” tagline.

But before getting the chance to test the Coupe’s zigging ability, you have to get into the thing. Touch-button locks keep the exterior looking clean, and work well once you’re used to them. Inside, the interior is unchanged from the CTS sedan, meaning there’s a lot of design, a lot of materials, and a very adequate sensation of luxury. Here, more than anywhere else, Cadillac has a few things to learn from its choice of launch hotel, which managed to make reclaimed wood and rusting steel seem luxurious, and the Caddy’s interior seem downright garish.

Interior dimensions are predictably hampered by the Coupe’s crisply-tailored suit. At about six foot one, my head resolutely grazed the headliner until the driver’s seat was at its lowest setting. Even then, spirited driving over bumpy roads caused the occasional annoying head-tap. The rear bucket seats are surprisingly spacious… below shoulder-height. Hip and leg room are more than adequate, but head and shoulder room are non-existent for the post-pubescent. But then I don’t seem to remember Don Draper or Darth Vader ever volunteering their personal luxury coupes for carpooling duty.

Fire up the standard 3.6 liter V6, pop the shifter into drive, and the Coupe pulls into traffic with ease. The lower axle ratio is immediately noticeable when pulling away from stops, but probably only if you just got out of a CTS Sedan or Sportwagon. Don’t expect noisy burnouts though: the difference is manifested more as a slight annoyance with the sedan than a sense that the Coupe is a drooling, snarling beast. In fact, cruising through the small towns and curving roads of California’s wine country at the speed limit is a quiet, refined experience. The only thing missing from the smooth, revvy V6 is some soft V8 burble. Otherwise, this coupe has more horsepower (304) and only 27 lb-ft less torque than the old Eldo’s Northstar, and makes a great wafting companion. Things have changed in eight years, but Cadillac Coupes are still best when cruised graciously from luxurious destination to luxurious destination.

And what if a few curves appear? Slide the shifter towards the passenger to activate sport mode, and “turn off” the traction control, and the CTS loses its bourgeois decorum faster than a sorority girl at Señor Frogs. Though Cadillac does not re-map engines for sport-mode, the transmission changes alone are downright surprising. Not only will it hold a gear until you’ve wrung every last raspy gasp from the V6, but it’s far more aggressive in its downshifts than you’d expect. In fact, once in this so-called “competition mode” the drivetrain absolutely insists that you abuse the right pedal, punishing half-hearted pokes at the throttle and brakes with deep downshifts and soaring revs. Nail it hard, and it will stay right with you, keeping a low gear gear coming out of a corner, when other “sport modes” would have short-shifted mid-corner. Technically there are paddle shifters located behind the steering wheel, but most owners will either never know, or quickly forget that they’re there at all.

Unfortunately, the drivetrain’s playfulness is never quite matched by the steering and handing. In fairness, the steering is better weighted than other GM products, and the chassis (tested with FE3 sport suspension) is generally competent at both cruising and cornering. But with the engine and transmission begging for a spanking, it’s all too easy to find the CTS getting flummoxed. There’s grip aplenty from the optional summer tires and uprated suspension, but there’s no respite from the physics of nearly 4,000 pounds trying to hold onto the road. Thanks to the wider rear track, there’s little scope for tail-wagging, and you’ll probably find the Coupe pushing on its front tires as often as it slips its rears. Grab a line and power through a sweeper, and you’ll want for nothing from this loaded example. Try to string several smooth corners together, however, and unless you’re a truly seasoned driver, you’ll end up with more tossing and thrashing than you’ll get out of certain competitors. Weight, visibility and damping deficits keep this Cadillac firmly in the “competent” category of cornering coupes.

And somehow that’s quite alright. Sure, Cadillac wants to be perceived as the equal to a BMW or Mercedes, and clearly this Coupe could do more to flatter the driver around tight roads. But the CTS-V Coupe is being launched later this summer, and its extra 250-odd horsepower and adaptive suspension should fulfill the performance promise of a range-topping luxury coupe. Meanwhile, the standard CTS Coupe is available at a base $38,990, with prices ranging to our loaded tester’s $51,825. Like the Buick Regal we tested recently, the CTS Coupe shows GM’s new approach to luxury: Ride and handling that are refined for commuting duty yet up for some occasional fun, wrapped in a distinctively-styled, modern body.

Unlike the Regal, however, the CTS Coupe hits its styling cues to perfection, and manages to fuse the brand’s future to its past in terms of both style and abilities. It’s a car that makes a distinctive and undeniable fashion statement that you either love or hate. This is the kind of Cadillac that you’d buy after landing a big client, or crushing a nascent rebellion… and if it had been launched in the midst of a go-go economy, it would doubtless sell like hotcakes. In today’s brutally-competitive luxury market, however, it’s neither extra-refined and luxurious nor a therapeutic joy to fling around a windy road. As such it has the same work cut out for it that the CTS sedan still does, some 8 years after it was first launched.

Cadillac paid for our airfare and accommodation for this new product launch, including several delicious meals and an open bar. Since it took place in California’s tony Napa Valley, none of it was cheap.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

63 Comments on “Review: 2011 Cadillac CTS Coupe...”


  • avatar

    No offense intended to Ed, but I think Government Motors has better ways to spend our money than feting its products to bloggers at $450/night resorts.

    • 0 avatar

      None taken, and I certainly agree in principle. Were TTAC’s budget not as limited as it is, and were there affordable accommodations to be had in the area I would have avoided the junket. As it is, there are few alternatives for sampling new-to-the-market products, so I feel justified in taking up the luxurious offer.

    • 0 avatar

      Hey, no question… if they’re offering and paying the bills, take it!

      And I do think you presented a very fair assessment of the car.

    • 0 avatar

      Everyone does it. But only a few places like TTAC have the stones to admit it.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Right, $450 will buy you soooooooooooooo much advertising.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      Rob – the worst thing that GM could do would be to launch a car without a press event and thus miss out on an avalanche of column inches and publicity. Every well run company does it because it’s a smart thing to do – regardless if they have a government loan or not.

    • 0 avatar

      But does that “press event” really have to be at a megabucks resort, carguy? Especially when the only reason the company’s around is but for the grace of the US taxpayer?

      Sorry, but that whole inconvenient “government loans” thing DOES factor in here. Especially given GM’s still-precarious financial state, “events” like this are what trade shows are for.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      has better ways to spend our money than feting its products to bloggers at $450/night resorts.

      Really? I’d love to hear how you suggest they present a luxury car to the media….

    • 0 avatar

      Coulda saved yourself the trip to the snark store, jmo, had you bothered to read the post right before yours.

      “Especially given GM’s still-precarious financial state, “events” like this are what trade shows are for.”

    • 0 avatar
      mpresley

      But does that “press event” really have to be at a megabucks resort, carguy? Especially when the only reason the company’s around is but for the grace of the US taxpayer?

      Ok, let me break it down for you. They’re not called Government Motors for nothing, and, after all, we’re only taxpayers. To tell you the truth, we should be damned grateful for whatever they let us have, and not cause problems. Like the BP guy said, we’re just the “Small People” Sure, they “care” about us, but really, where do we get off telling our industry and government masters what to do? They call the shots, we pay the bills, and that’s that. Comprende? I mean, where do you think you live, China?

    • 0 avatar
      lastgiantrobot

      What would be the better way to spend money? Are you making the argument that there is a better media buy strategy or that GM should not advertise at all? That they have “our money” is an argument that they use the money effectively not that they should not use it all; if GM wants to rehabilitate the Cadillac brand as a luxury brand then they need to associate it with upscale/aspirational environments. If they approach advertising with a hairshirted perspective they would damage the luxury image of the brand. Would anyone buy a luxury car from a brand that advertised at an Applebee’s dinner? I would but I have a thing for their grilled cheese and fries combo.

    • 0 avatar

      lastgiantrobot — Of course Gov’t Motors needs to advertise this new car. But there’s a big difference between making a handful of early-production models available for testing to any media types who wish to travel to Michigan to drive one, and throwing a lavish party in California wine country to court select members of the press.

      And again, no offense to Ed or TTAC… but why spend all that money to essentially court bloggers? Short answer — because it’s not Gov’t Motors’ money to spend, it’s ours!

      (Perhaps they’ll hold off on the Applebees intro until the new Impala is ready to go, sometime in 2014.)

    • 0 avatar
      Len_A

      I have to agree with carguy, jmo, & lastgiantrobot. The snark seems to be coming from the rest. I agree 100% that this was the right move for GM. You don’t go halfway with a luxury brand, or you won’t gain any credibility with potential buyers. Where & how GM was bailed out can’t be an issue. For Cadillac to be seen as a legitimate luxury brand, they have to play in a high end atmosphere. Cadillac generates a lot of profit per unit, and the better they sell, the better GM’s bottom-line looks to Wall Street when they do their IPO. The better that goes, the more the government gets, and everyone else can move on, and the critics can take the chip off their shoulders.

    • 0 avatar
      NickR

      What do you suggest, have them snack in a Walmart McDonald’s and have them drive around cones in the parking lot?

      If they are going to survive they are going to have to market their products suitably and I think a ‘press junket’ like this is par for the course.

    • 0 avatar

      “What do you suggest, have them snack in a Walmart McDonald’s and have them drive around cones in the parking lot?”

      You’re so clever. (Though actually, that would be more in keeping with GM’s image with the public at-large…)

      Cutting to the chase: responsible companies with cash to spend can do things like this. Failed companies suckling on the federal teat should not. Again, invite the press types to Michigan if you want them to drive the damn cars. Or was GM afraid to have the CTS run on less-than optimum roads?

    • 0 avatar
      lastgiantrobot

      Not to hammer this thread but I still disagree, I do believe this was a proper use of government funds by GM. Your contention that GM should just bring people to Michigan and put them up in an econo-lodge might work for the impala but Cadillac is a luxury brand and needs not just to highlight the mechanics of the car but also the “luxury” lifestyle it is to be associated with. If it were just about the technical merits of the car then every car company would just have a display center at the Nürburgring and that would be that… however Cadillac, like any other luxury car brand, needs to portray it self as the chariot of the rich and famous so that less well off individuals will want to finance (thats the most important bit of luxury sales) a Cadillac to have a part of that dream. To that end you show off your car in NorCal, which no offense to Michiganites, is a lot nicer place but in reality and in the zeitgeist of the car buying public. As for your umbrage at GM taking bloggers there; who else would they take? Print is dead, even GM can see that and there are no TV shows of worth to show cars of to unless you can somehow net Oprah in hawking it (by the way everybody go vote for Zach Anner). In addition if Cadillac wants to target a younger demographic it needs to use the medium trusted by the new generations: the intertubez.

    • 0 avatar
      Len_A

      @lastgiantrobot: +1. I couldn’t agree with you more. Those criticizing GM are just plain wrong. They need to get over their crap about GM;’s bailout. GM’s job is to run their business in such a way as to increase the likelyhood of paying everything back that they borrowed, and that means treating Cadillac like a luxury brand.

      All the critics can quit whining already.

  • avatar
    mtypex

    I still don’t care for the tailpipe design.

    • 0 avatar

      The only thing I don’t like about this car is that it has a rear seat that looks virtually useless. Who could really sit back there except a little kid???

      The tailpipe looks like what you’d find on a Lamborghini.

      I can’t wait to drive the CTS-V. Probably the closest I’ll ever come to having a Reventon.

    • 0 avatar

      Those RIMS look like shit.

      I recommend some C-notes….anything that resembles the “turbines” on the Reventon.

      hypnotic CNOTE http://www.world4wheels.com/Pics/Banners/Banner_Home_Hipnotic_CNote_08.jpg

  • avatar

    Stunning! Eye candy makes up for a lot of small deficiencies.

    I thought the base price was out of line but it’s really not all that bad compared to a BMW, Infiniti, or Mercedes coupe.

    • 0 avatar
      SVX pearlie

      Given that the buyer never rides in the rear, as long as the rears are passable for taking tag-along coworkers to lunch, it’s fine.

    • 0 avatar

      I’ve input the pricing into TrueDelta’s database. Adjust for the coupe’s additional standard content, and the base model is about even with the base sedan–even without adjusting for the larger standard engine and wheels.

      The upper trim levels aren’t quite as good a value, but if both cars are loaded up the coupe lists for $1,300 more than the sedan, which seems reasonable.

      To run your own price comparisons:

      http://www.truedelta.com/prices.php

      The 2008 and 2009 CTS has been about average in reliability lately. We don’t have have enough participants for the 2010 and 2011 yet–especially need more participants for these years.

      http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php

  • avatar
    educatordan

    I like it and we’ll see where Caddy goes with its “identity.” BMW fighters? Great! Now how do you explain the XTS in that mantra?

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      BMW is affixing its roundrel to every kind of segment-straddling vehicle available as their quest has evolved into making not the ultimate driving machine, but “joy.” Like Caddy, they have some excellent products like the 3, but many they could do without as well.

    • 0 avatar

      You explain the XTS like this: Money’s tight at GM. Cadillac is presently serving two audiences, the folks who like CTSs and the… legacy customers. The DTS, the car Cadillac offers for the legacy folks, was getting ancient. XTS is an inexpensive-to-develop DTS successor that will keep those people smiling while the newcomers enjoy the CTS range and the upcoming ATS and await the much-hoped-for slay-all-comers RWD Cadillac flagship car that GM can’t quite find the money to develop yet.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I don’t think that traditional Cadillac Deville/DTS buyers are going to like the whole “no V8 offered” part of the XTS.

    • 0 avatar

      I think (actually, I know) that Cadillac/GM thinks they will, and I bet they have data to support that supposition (and/or contingency plans to stuff the 5.3 smallblock into the XTS if necessary).

    • 0 avatar
      SVX pearlie

      The XTS beats the hell out of the 5GT and X5.

      I’m just sayin’

    • 0 avatar
      npbheights

      After owning a Northstar into its old age- 150,000 miles, with its propensity to leak oil profusely and blow head gaskets, and finding out that most mechanics won’t want to touch the thing, no rebuilt/remans are available, and junk motors are probably well named, I look forward to a V6 Caddy. Hopefully they are as good as the new V6′s in the current crop of Lincolns.
      That being said, the old pushrod 5.3 would be fine too. The 4.8 in my Silverado is a pretty amazing engine as well, with none of the aforementioned side effects and unmitigated flaws in the nearly 20 year old Northstar engine design.

  • avatar
    1st_one

    Not a fan of the hatchback like design. I wish they would have created a traditional looking coupe, this one looks to awkward furthermore, I can’t get with the tailpipe design.

  • avatar
    jplane

    I hate that a 6’1″ guy has trouble in this car. One thing about Caddy’s – they usually made tall people feel welcome.

    At 6’6″ and with proportionally short legs, all sports cars are a nightmare. I was really hoping the Caddy would be the exception.

    I do love the car.

    • 0 avatar
      tedward

      That sucks. 6’6″ is a bad place to be car shopping from. The only current brands that I know for sure fit 6’4″+’ers are MINI and VW, neither of which rises into this segment. Or comes even close to be honest.

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      Dang, glad I’m 5’11.” What kind of world is it when a Cadillac won’t fit tall people but a Mini will.

    • 0 avatar
      tedward

      strange isn’t it? Basically MINI dosen’t care what the driver does to the back seat’s leg-room. I wholeheartedly approve and think that every car should be set up like this (and I’m only 6’2″).

      My Fit could use another inch or two, and I bet the only reason it doesn’t have it is that you couldn’t get the rear seat to fold completely flat past a certain point of intrusion. So instead of accepting this minor quibble, easily worked around by the owners, Honda decided to rule out really tall drivers. Same goes for most vehicles, it’s not like I hate my car.

    • 0 avatar
      ekaftan

      Feel your pain… 6″5 here and short legs. Every car is too low, except a VW beetle….

    • 0 avatar

      THE CADDY IS AN EXCEPTION!!!

      I just got through with one and I couldn’t believe how spacious this car actually is. The reviews I’ve read don’t do it justice.

      I’m really tall and I had to put the seat ll the way back and all the way down. Then I tilted it back and I got in it just fine. There was no space left behind me for legs but, I was able to drive comfortably.

      The other people at the event were suprised the front passenger seat was so spacious.

      Basically, its because you “lay” down like you are leaving against a bed while sitting on the floor.

      EVERY SUPERCAR FROM NOW ON, from the Veyron to the Lamborghini should use the CTS-COUPE as an interior space standard.
      This way, If I ever hit the Powerball, I can buy one :P

      http://www.epinions.com/content_515761540740

  • avatar
    ajla

    That 3.73 axle ratio needs to find its way onto the Camaro LS/LT.

  • avatar
    twotone

    A good quick review of a nice looking car — I like it. I doubt that I could open the wide doors in my narrow garage, however.

    Twotone

  • avatar
    Bancho

    All things considered, I think I like it. I do have to say, however, that the rear window looks to be nothing more than a cosmetic affectation on this thing. This thing begs for a rear view camera.

  • avatar
    Doc

    Why is this car so heavy? Does it really weigh nearly 4,000 lbs? Is this car significantly bigger than a G37 coupe which only weighs 3,650 lbs? A 328i coupe only weighs 3,450 lbs. This car is not all wheel drive, it should not be that heavy.

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      Doc, I think that every recent review of a GM product on this site has commented on the heavieness of said product. I remember one of the contributors to this site (damned I can remember which one) postulating that GM is in the same spot Kia/Hyundai were a few years back. GM can make a solid feeling product but it ends up paying a heavy weight penalty (1st generation Kia Sedona as example.) Now GM needs to figure out how to add lightness to their vehicles while still making them feel solid. The only thing that bothers me about writing that statement is I’m making it about a 100 year old company that should know better by now.

    • 0 avatar

      The 3.6 Liter CTS Coupe AWD weighs 4131 while the 3.6 Liter CTS SEDAN AWD weighs 3872…

      That’s insane… i was expecting the coupe to weigh less… not more.

      The CTS Coupe RWD weighs 3909. The AWD unit must be pretty goddamned heavy.

      Thing is, with 300 Horses at midrange, I doubt this car’s gonna feel slow at all. In fact, its got way more power than people are gonna even need for a daily commute. $40,000 is a pretty fair price. I’m not excited about the center console (and never have been), but the seating looks great.

    • 0 avatar

      “Now GM needs to figure out how to add lightness to their vehicles while still making them feel solid. The only thing that bothers me about writing that statement is I’m making it about a 100 year old company that should know better by now.”

      Back when designers such as Harley Earl instead of accountants called the shots, they did know better.

      Let the “True Believers” inside GM do their thing and I think they’ll figure it out. Adding lightness should be a top priority for all the Detroit automakers.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    GM, you had me at G-8…then you lost me.

    • 0 avatar
      Christy Garwood

      Mark, I am sorry to hear that you are lost without Pontiac.

      I attended a Cadillac sponsored event in Philadelphia on June 5 as part of my job here at GM’s Warren Tech Center and had the pleasure of driving the CTS-V Coupe! If you get the chance to test drive one, I highly recommend it. I also have been a backseat passenger in both the G8 and the CTS-V Coupe. The Cadillac was better in my book even though I had to ‘climb’ around the driver’s seat.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    I really like this car, with the exception of the nostril exhaust in the rear bumper. And, finally, GM is making some nice interiors that haven’t been bean counted to death. Educatordan is correct that GM relies too much on weight to make the car feel solid. Take the Traverse – 5000lbs? But being fair, many other makes are not too far behind in the “gordita” department. When driving a new vehicle back to back with a well maintained old (15 yr) car, you can’t help but be impressed with all the improvements, but despite all the technological gains, you can feel all that mass and it really is a detraction. Light weight is a treat in and of itself.

    BTW, the constant bellyaching about “Government Motors” really is meaningless at this point. Funny that I have heard some people talking about how much better the product is now that GM is publicly owned. I really got quite the chuckle out of that – as if product design and development could be implemented so fast…anyway, all those who state the can’t buy GM now due to the bailout were hardly predisposed to GM before.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    I don’t understand why the BMW 3 is not bashed more for its (lack of) rear seat space.
    I understand that it is always referred to when comparing sports sedans, but then the rear seat knee room is skimmed over.
    The CTS seems to have more room than the 3, Ed, but once again the remark about the tall person problem.
    I “think” the only small luxury sports sedan with any rear leg room is the A4, right?

    When I spent time driving around RI visiting accounts with sales people, their CTS leases seemed uncomfortable.
    The road noise was bothersome as well for that price.

    Is this car better at this?

    • 0 avatar
      Doc

      The Infinity G37 has a pretty good size back seat. Can comfortably fit 4 adults. I agree that this really limits the 3 series.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Doc

      It has been a long time since I drove the G.With it’s new and better looks as well as the fantastic reviews from everywhere, I really need to look at it again and consider it for my next car.
      The ONLY thing…I am trying to make the next car a hatch.

      I need an affordable, fast, fun and stuff hauler for my next car.
      Don’t want an SUV, any CUV or whateverUV.
      I was hoping th new Caddy sportwagen was it but again, to slow.

  • avatar
    jcp2

    But the Lincoln MKS can.

  • avatar
    UnclePete

    I like the looks of this. I could see this as my next car. Proof will be in the driving to see how ponderous it feels, and whether or not I can live with gun-slit mirrors.

  • avatar
    gasser

    Saw this car at last L.A. Auto Show. The doors are immense. You better not be in a parking lot when you try to get out of this car. You’d need an entire empty spot next to yours just to swing open the door. I also didn’t care for the extreme angle of the coupe roof. I see another GM loser.

  • avatar
    Canucknucklehead

    Wow, $450 a night of tax-payer’s cash will certainly give you a lot of good press. I mean, hardly a single “journalist” who partook in said digs, and complimentary wet bar, is going to mention that the CTS is a reliability disaster and famous for the differential grenading.

    Good work, Government Motors!

  • avatar
    John Horner

    What is it with the ever growing front grills on modern designs? Is the idea that this car has such a big mouth it will eat anything which gets in front of it?

    • 0 avatar
      Len_A

      It’s getting a bit much, with these huge grills. You have to wonder when the pendulum is swing back to more medium size grills, especially on luxury cars.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    I’m sure somebody was wondering what a Art-and-Science rendition of a 1971 Mustang would look like. That person should remain anonymous to avoid shame.

    The grille has to be gigantic to distract the eye from the car having approximately the same frontal area as a movie theater screen.

  • avatar
    polska

    Jesus, that car is an eyesore.

  • avatar
    frizzlefry

    Profile reminds me of the Nissan Altima Coupe. Maybe thats because of the tires. Not sure. Either way, yuck. Not keen on the exhaust pipes either.

  • avatar
    wsn

    Many TTAC posters claim that they like the car. But none of them will actually buy one.

    • 0 avatar

      While this car just might be the sexiest, non – $150,000+ car on the road, there are reasons I couldn’t buy one.

      #1 I fit in it, to my susprise, but, its still a small car. This would be a good car for people who buy Corvettes, Porsches or Mini Coopers, its not a car for people used to driving big cars as a primary vehicle. I moved out of a Ford Expedition/ Cadillac EXT to an S550/ Chrysler 300. This car is like buying a Lamborghini or Veyron. Its a hobby vehicle.

      #2 I’d only want the CTS-V. Closest I’ll ever get to a Reventon.

  • avatar

    FIRST THINGS FIRST.
    I have driven this car at the Cadillac CTS Coupe Event and let me say: #1 I’m 6’7 and fIt perfectly inside. Even though you virtually lay on the ground, its still friendly to big guys.
    #2 The rear exhaust looks better in person than in photos.#3 the car looks better in person than in photos.

    http://www.epinions.com/content_515761540740

  • avatar
    Christy Garwood

    EN, thanks for taking the time to drive the Cadillac CTS Coupe and attending the roll out in Napa Valley. As a Cadillac/ Buick/ GMC/ Chevrolet employee speaking my own mind, I always appreciate the candid reviews of cars on this site. And I appreciate the opinions of all the commentators, whether you see the car up close or just in pictures.

    I was wondering though, Ed, was it a windy day or was the road winding? :-)


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India