Aside from ad revenue, why would a car magazine want to position itself as a cheering section for General Motors? Well exactly. Car and Driver’s September review of the “new” Cadillac CTS is such a blatant example of boosterism it puts the "sub" in "subsidy." This will come as no surprise to regular readers who’ve watched the buff book slowly sink into a glossy ghetto of pistonhead prostitution. Even so, I feel compelled to use C&D’s CTS review as a re-launching pad for Between the Lines, so that TTAC readers understand what this website stands for. Or, more precisely, against.
By its very title, “Second Wind” pronounces the CTS refreshed, re-energized and ready to take on the transplants (which have been slaughtering it in the sales charts). According to the all-caps strapline, the model also represents a new dawn for General Motors.
“CADILLAC IMPROVES ITS ENTRY-LEVEL CAR AND PROVES IN THE PROCESS THAT THE FRONT OFFICE HAS UNDERGONE A REDESIGN, TOO.”
“Amazingly, each new product coming down the GM pipeline these days seems to signal that the once-defining beancounter bureaucracy has finally been replaced by a genuine desire to create top-notch products. And this latest CTS is the most comprehensively integrated vehicle we’ve seen yet.”
Not so amazingly, Dave Vanderwerp’s opening salvo fails to consider the “new” Chevrolet Aveo, a car so afflicted with beancounteritis it began life as a budgeting exercise. Anyway, one can immediately sense the author’s discomfort with the task ahead. The appearance of the word “seems” before an otherwise bold declaration of a product-led GM renaissance indicates a tension between editorial integrity and complete horseshit.
To wit: what the Hell is a “comprehensively integrated vehicle?” Do the newish CTS’ parts– suspension, engine, brakes, etc.– form a coherent whole, in a BMW 3-Series sort of way? Or does it mean all the parts fit?
Vanderwerp spends the next three ‘graphs contradicting the "new GM" thesis. He reveals that GM insurance regulations prohibited CTS lead development engineer Rob Kotrak from driving the car during its Nürburgring workouts. “What was that about a bureaucracy?” Vanderwerp demands of himself. Good question.
Literary self-flagellation aside, we get our first critical assessment. Blasting around the Green Hell, the CTS was "planted and predictable and never did anything unexpected.” Like what? Ascend above the asphalt like the cars in the TV ad? NOT overheat? The mind boggles.
Vanderwerp then lauds the CTS’ aesthetic perfection: “There’s no bad view of the new car…” Fair enough, but the author quickly hints that the CTS’ looks “might” have to be enough for buyers contemplating C&D’s favorite ‘Ringmeister.
“The redesigned CTS still might not stand a chance to be as responsive as the smaller and much lighter– by about 400 pounds– BMW 335i, but our favorite sports sedan has nothing on the Caddy’s aggressive looks.”
Apparently, there’s trouble down at the mill. After praising the CTS’ new 304hp V6 for its smoothness, “enthusiasm” between 4000 and 7000rpm, and ability to “run” with a Mercedes C350 and BMW 328i, Vanderwerp points out the new, portlier CTS is only a tenth of a second quicker through the quarter mile than the full-size Cadillac STS.
Hang on; why are we talking about tenths of seconds anyway? I mean, it’s a small Caddy, not a BMW. Who gives a damn?
Cadillac, as evidenced by the fact that GM’s PR flacks gave Vanderwerp a CTS equipped with the FE3 sports package; including super-sticky summer tires and revised dampers. Surely anyone looking for performance from the CTS would opt for the V-Series derivative. And every other CTS rides on more compliant all-season rubber. So… what are we talking about here?
From this point on, we’re talking about excuses and weasel words. Every criticism of the CTS arrives via a pulled punch or an ameliorative aside.
“The upgraded rack-and-pinion steering is linear and now offers more feedback, although its weighting is on the light side of perfection.” The manual “isn’t nearly as fluid as those from BMW” but the new “well-behaved six-speed automatic… will likely be the more popular choice anyway.” “Comfortable seats with surprising thigh and upper back support… will likely please the masses, but during exuberant driving, we wished for more lateral support.”
The CTS’ cabin earns Vanderwerp’s full, unadulterated admiration. THIS is where the aforementioned coherence resides: “Possibly the most dramatic improvement to the CTS is the upscale and coherently flowing interior, complete with classy materials and top-notch fit and finish.” Maybe so, but the author’s conclusion is a lot less credible.
“But with more style, power and features, we think the new CTS– and the new GM, for that matter– is destined to be even more of a winner.”
Yes, well, neither car nor company could be any LESS of a winner, could they? Or could they? One thing's for sure: the answer to that question will not be found in Car and Driver.
[Full C&D CTS review here .]
79 Comments on “Between the Lines: Car and Driver on the New Cadillac CTS...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I am not renewing my CD subscription after 30+ years or subscribing and 40+ years of reading. This kind of garbage has become more common over the soon-to-expire three year term of my subscription.
Not-to-mention the months-late coverage of auto shows…
Those quotes make the body of the article sound like the auto journalistic equivalent of a girl telling you ’she likes you as a friend’.
“Car and Dribble”
Brock Yates, got fired, I canceled my subscription after 28 years. That firing was the turning point for me and apparently for the magazine. Shame.
Wouldn’t that be Car and Drivel?
This is why C&D has been reduced to giving away free subscriptions. I’ve been a 25+ year subscriber, but I wouldn’t get the magazine anymore if I still had to pay for it. The last redesign they did about 8 months ago was the last nail, IMO.
I think this is an important editorial (or reveiw of the review) because it shows the influence of technology on traditional media. As magazine and newspaper readership shrink, C&D and its ilk are now much more dependent on advertisers than on subscribers for revenues.
Which means that a car has to be truly Sebringesque (i.e. “lousy”)to warrant a less than stellar review. Fair enough, what did you expect when the review is squished between advertising pages paid by its builder?
You see the same thing on TV, where more shows are relying on in-show product placement for revenues, as TiVO makes the commercials less useful.
But for car fans, this development is a real pity, because it means that the sources of honest reviews are drying up (this site excluded, obviously).
Maybe that’s why there are so many G6’s and LaCrosses and Avengers and Gallants getting sold while Fusions sit on the lot.
I love those “between the lines” Op-eds! Thanks Robert, for the great read
I allowed my subscription to C&D lapse this month after 13 years. The firing of Mr. Yates was certainly one reason. The horrible re-design another. The general drop in quality was the kicker. I would say that C&D is on par now with Motor Trend at it’s worst while Motor Trend has improved immensely.
I would suggest that it might be time to start a “Buff Book Deathwatch” I would think that it might reach a conclusion before the GM one does.
Why are you reviewing a review of the CTS? Is there a new section called “The Truth about Auto Journalism” that I missed? Where do I find an editorial about Motor Trend? (laff) Maybe you could just review the car next time, as I’m genuinely interested in the new CTS.
True, you shouldn’t be afraid to say what you feel no matter how much icing you have to puit on the cake to cover it, but i guess advertising dollars mean too much these days. The car looks a damn sight better than the old one though.
Came across this article this morning, maybe theres hope….just maybe, can perception be changed?
THANK YOU for bringing back Between the Lines! It serves as a great reminder of why so many of us have given up on the mainstream press.
Steve_K:
We will review the newish Cadillac CTS as soon as we can get our hands on one.
For some reason, GM doesn't invite TTAC to their press junkets, or provide us with press cars.
Does anybody remember Leon Mandel? Those were the days, typified by the famous “Opel in the Junkyard” photo.
I like these “between the lines” eds also.
This explains why C&D recently gushed over the Chrysler Sebring convertible (placing it #2 behind the G6 of all things in a comparo), but just yesterday I read that the LA Times, presumably Dan Neil, bashed the same car to hell.
I’m not surprised with the latter, given the Sebring/Avenger sedans’ reputation (or lack thereof).
The sad part is… the CTS was GM’s best attempt at creating a segment-leading vehicle. It certainly doesn’t seem like a bad car, but it’s hard to imagine an enthusiast picking it over a 3-series, G35, or even the new C-class.
The all-expenses paid junket to the Nürburgring just might affect the objectivity of the review, don’t you think? BTW, did were any cars destroyed during the course of this review, by C&D or by other auto journalists?
I’m glad to see the return of these type articles, nailing the traditional auto press to the wall. The sad decline of the buff books has made them merely glorified press releases.
Having myself gone on these “all-expense-paid junkets” for 30 years now, believe me, car writers look upon these things as work, unless maybe you’re 22 years old and have never traveled farther than Canada. Though by the time you’re 24, you’ll be trying to avoid the next all-expense-paid junket.
To somebody who sits in a cubicle in Cincinnati all day, having to drag your ass to the Nurburgring to drive a Cadillac probably sounds like Nirvana. After you’ve done it 50 times, it’s actually work.
The Wall Street Journal did an “expose” of car-writer junkets 15 or 20 years ago, and I remember Pat Bedard being quoted in it, saying something to the effect that it was ludicrous for anybody to believe that somebody would prostitute themselves for a few free dinners.
Oh, and another thing about junkets: Jean Jennings was once quoted as saying that automotive junkets “were like going on a fabulous vacation…with 50 people you couldn’t stand.” How true.
“Or does it mean all the parts fit?”
In a kinda “J.D. Power Initial Quality Study” sorta way.
The car rags are humorous. When a new model comes out from GM they will say “This is the best car on planet earth” (Followed by 4 pages of GM ads) and then 4 years later when the all-new redesign comes out, they will start their review with “We all know that the old model sucked Lama dung but this all-new model is the best car on planet earth” (Followed by 6 pages of GM ads).
I think an interview for a broadcast media journalist position goes something like this:
Lead Editor: “How’s your honor?”
Job Candidate: “What honor?”
Lead Editor “Your hired!”
It’s not just these “car” car magazines that do it. I’ve been a reader of Four Wheeler for years and this year they had three trucks to choose from for their Pick-up Truck of The Year: The GMC Sierra, The Chevrolet Avalanche, and the Chevrolet Silverado. The GMT 900 won. OK, it was the Avalanche. At any rate, they sugar-coated the hell out of the article and despite the Avalanches running boards (included in the off-road package) and 20″ wheels and smallest bed space, it still won. The GMT-900 is not an off-road platform and most of the options popular with customers do nothing to help. There are precious few rock-worthy 4×4’s being built these days and rather than bring that point up, 4-Wheeler mindlessly praised the virtues of a straight GM line while sugar-coating the fact that the running-boards were ruined and the skinny little low-profile tire found its way loose of its over sized rim.
First of all, thank you Mr. Farago for bringing more attention to this issue.
I finally let my C+D subscription expire after 18 years. Although they have always loved BMWs and Hondas, these “domestic cheerleading” types of reviews have been happening to a lesser extent since the early ’90s. Remember “DETROIT FIGHTS BACK!” with the Dodge Intrepid on the cover? Or the Lumina Z34 vs Taurus SHO vs Dodge Spirit R/T Turbo? Everytime Detroit rolls out a so-called import fighter, mags fall all over themselves and talk as if they are the second coming. Where are the aforementioned models today? Not taking on imports, because they’re dead!
Not just ‘probably sounding’ like Nirvana. :)
But I can definitely see how the whole plane-> hotel -> dinner -> Nurburgring -> dinner -> hotel -> plane -> write article cycle could get dull, especially if you’ve got to have it cleared with an editor to make sure that it’s “pro-GM enough”.
Anyway, GM desperately wants people to believe that the CTS is on par 3-series, G35, and C-class, as a sporty compact executive car. (whether or not it actually is, is another ball of wax) They can’t deliver that message extensively in a two page ad, or a 30 second TV spot, so GM turns to articles.
Still, it’s silly that anyone would take their CTS (or anything like it) to a brutal track like the Ring. You don’t see Infiniti, Mercedes, BMW, or Lexus taking journalists for a ride around a famous track in their non-sport models.
And then there’s the problem(?) of the Ring being used as a marketing tool for manufacturers….
I also let my subscription lapse this last March after almost 15 years. While Phillips still made me laugh, I couldn’t take the obsessive pandering to the automakers, the new “fresh” redesigns every six months (it seemed anyway), and the firing of Yates (though I rarely agreed with everything he had to say, he was a cornerstone of the magazine and entertaining to read).
I will echo the comment stating that C&D is now flirting with the low standard that Motor Trend had set and held until the last few years.
Actually the crux of why all of my automotive magazine subscriptions have lapsed in the last year is on this site right now. Between TTAC and Jalopnik, I find information in the buff books six months later than I see it here. That renders the mags useless in my mind. Well, other than fireplace kindling… but I still have the local paper for that.
So if C&D, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Winding Road and Edmunds (all involved with the Germany Preview) all have similar overall “feelings” towards the ‘08 CTS, than I guess their opinions are useless for consumers.
I have little doubt that dependency upon the automakers for both advertising and test vehicles causes many a publication to pull punches. Even if the writer would like to be candid, you can rest assured that the writer has an editor, and that the editor has a boss or two to placate, ensuring that there will be some degree of self-censorship, at the very least.
That being said, I wonder whether some aspects of this are more a matter of nationalistic boosterism than a genuine desire for taint. For all their criticisms, I doubt that many enthusiastic American auto journalists are pleased to see the industry go down in flames, and have a glimmer of hope that the Big 2.8 will finally step up to the plate with profoundly competitive product. You don’t have to be a raving Red State flagwaver to want to see good things coming out of Detroit, even if you have to squint to see them.
SkiD666,
You’re missing the point. The point is that the mags are catering to the advertiser so much, (as the article shows) there is little objective journalism left. If they’re just a mouthpiece for GM, why bother? And in that case, yes, their opinion is useless for this consumer.
Stephan Wilkinson:
As we’ve written before (see: Press Junkets Must Die!), the whole PR massage thing is an enormous waste of time and money.
Just hand the cars over to journos where they live ASAP and be done with it.
Oh, and don’t get me started about specially massaged “press” vehicles.
SkiD666: So if C&D, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Winding Road and Edmunds (all involved with the Germany Preview) all have similar overall “feelings” towards the ‘08 CTS, than I guess their opinions are useless for consumers.
Good guess. Have you seen the gushing review of the ‘08 CTS in Road & Track? Read it and then tell me it’s impartial.
Steve_K:
“Why are you reviewing a review of the CTS? Maybe you could just review the car next time, as I’m genuinely interested in the new CTS”
Agreed—I’m truly interested in hearing about the new CTS (vs a review of the reviewer) I saw it at the Chicago auto show and thought the style was now better iteration of what a 4 door premium sedan should look like—it was certainly better than the prior CTS, bangle-ized 3 or the sebring-looking MB C.
When is the TTAC review scheduled ?
I think we’re forgetting that buff books are entertainment, not squinty-eyed appraisers of product. If you want a logical assessment of a vehicle, go to Consumer Reports. Yeah, we all whine about how they’re _too_ squinty-eyed and that they don’t understand what the enthusiast needs and wants, but of course CR doesn’t care what the enthusiast wants; it’s a tiny fraction of the market.
One of the basic purposes of the car magazines is to create a tiny (in the grand scheme of things) readership of presumed “experts.” (At least they/we/us’ns think we’re experts…) And Joe from down the street comes to us once a year and asks what we think of the new Saturn Aura, because he sees us reading Car and Driver and this validates us as experts, in his eyes.
I’m sure we’ve all had the experience–the acquaintance we hear from every so often, and it’s always for car-buying advice. They’d never dream of inviting us out for dinner, or for a weekend on their boat, but they’re all over us at car-buying time: we’re the “car guys.”
The advertisers aren’t so much trying to sell units directly to the small group of people who read C/D, R&T, winding Road and the rest (and most of them are the same people, reading multiple magazines), they’re trying to reach the rest of the car-buying population through us presumed decision-makers, decision-enablers, opinion-makers.
If we allow ourselves to believe the fact that C&D is in part supposed to be “entertainment” should excuse it from journalistic ethics then I was correct in allowing my subscription to lapse.
I like Automobile’s review of the new CTS. They took the car along with a Merc C-Class and BMW 3-Series and more or less exposed the new Caddy as not good enough.
I quit reading those magazines (C&D, MT, etc) in the 1990s after they chose the new Chevy Malibu as the car of the year. Shortly thereafter, the new Malibu proved itself as one of the most unreliable cars produced by any manufacturer that year. Why bother reading the rest of the magazine when they are capable of botching the COTY selection so terribly?
Here’s another thought – as virtually all vehicles get better, maybe it’s getting harder and harder to write reviews?
The new CTS may not be as good as a 3-Series, but it’s no Sebring, either. And the fact that the Sebring and Avenger regularly come up in this sort of conversation could be seen as an indication of how rare it is for an all-new (or even heavily revamped) car to be truly awful.
Instead of “good, mediocre, awful” we now have “great, very good, good” in most categories.
Somehow, given what else I’ve read about the new CTS, I would be very skeptical of a journalist who really ripped it to pieces. Just because it isn’t as good as the class leader doesn’t mean it’s terrible.
geeber’s is a very good point. I remember chatting with Pat Bedard a few years ago about how we live in an automotive paradise compared to the old days when we were together at C/D: with the absolute rarest of exceptions, there’s no such thing anymore as a bad car. Oh, you may not particularly like this Buick or that Hyundai, but there’s not a thing truly wrong with it.
Mr. Danda…
You parted ways with those mags for pretty much the same reason as myself; the day I saw the golden calipers handed over to the 1997 Chevrolet Malibu I realized something was horribly amiss with the publications I had so religiously followed up to that point… I won’t say much more, but suffice to say that trying to read those mags as a means of making an informed objectively based car-buying decision is akin to watching CNN to form opinions on political candidates and the state of US Foreign Relations… I have no sympathy for those who make decisions and form opinions based soley on “information” relayed by mass media in all its wonderful forms… dig deep people
Is it just me, or has C&D gone completely over to the fringe right, politically? The “Al Gore is the anti-christ” and “global warning is a hoax”, editorials are not what I want to see in a car mag. I used to really like this mag.
Stephan Wilkinson “I think we’re forgetting that buff books are entertainment, not squinty-eyed appraisers of product.”
I don’t know, true you may know that it is entertainment but consider it from the general public’s perception. Car & Driver, Motor Trend and the like are seen as experts so to speak. They do call them product reviews don’t they.
I use to subscribe to them during the 80s and 90’s but I cancelled them well before the Internet came of age because they ceased to have relevance. How many Chevy Citation type puff pieces can you pawn off to the general public before you get into the fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me routine?
Stephan and geeber:
At what point does something just become a bad car? The recently redesigned/replaced Freelander was an ok looking car that performed so-so, but every dealer i know that sold one (used) had the customer bringing it back with numerous problems, many of them major. And what about the just previous Kia Rio and the current Dodge Neon. Maybe these 2 vehicles drive out ok when they’re brand new, i don’t know, but at the 1-2 year mark they felt positively unsafe to take on the highway. Traction problems, roaring small motors, an absurdly lightweight, listless feel to them that a strong wind might blow one into a wall while in motion were my impressions (confirmed by terrible crash test ratings). Or how about the disastrously unreliable and pathetic performing Kia Sportage that preceded the current model? What about the Dodge Ram and its obscene tranny problems before Daimler bought Chrysler? Or how about the steering column in most of GM’s product line from 2003-2006. Clunk, clunk, clunk. Or the previous Taurus getting 21mpg on average. I no longer work at a fleet company, but when I did, I learned firsthand just how unreliable and unsafe and pathetic a lot of vehicles were. I doubt such claims can be made about a near-luxury vehicle like the CTS, but at some point I think it’s fair to say that certain qualities amount to making a vehicle a bad car.
People keep fulminating about “journalistic ethics” and the like, and that’s exactly my point in saying it’s entertainment, not journalism. The people who write for car magazines are not journalists (in the classic sense) at all. They haven’t the faintest idea what journalism is. Some of them, indeed, are engineers who can barely write, and they’ll be the first to admit it. (At least they have to me.) Calling them journalists is like calling Paris Hilton an actress or Snoop Dogg a musician.
Which is not to deride them (or Paris, or Snoop). I’m just saying let’s understand what they’re meant to do and what they intend to do. Just because the nightly news calls a 45-second piece “The News In Depth” doesn’t make it so.
Oh, and C/D hasn’t “gone over to the fringe right, politically,” it’s been there for decades. And I think Csere, Bedard, Yates and a few others would be the first to proudly affirm that…
What a sad state C&D has found their magazine in, compared to the glory days of the 1960’s and 70’s.
Even when they drum up a couple of their old race cars from their glorious past for an article, Bedard won’t even drive. *Sigh….*
The reason Pat wouldn’t drive goes a lot deeper than you’ll ever know.
Sorry, didn’t realize I was fulminating. I’ll go back to ruminating in my corner.
Gosh, I resubscribed to C/D _because_ they fired Brock Yates. Got to encourage good behavior.
Stephan Wilkinson I guess that is the problem. Many of us expect mainstream magazines to be honest journalistically.
Precisely, C&D and the rest make a point of reminding us from time to time that the add department and editorial are distinct and independent entities. Common sense would suggest that this isn’t 100% true.
Why was Brock Yates fired from C&D? Any info on that?
pdub: The “buff” books do not report on long-term reliability. They generally test a vehicle when it is either new, or heavily revamped. I don’t look to Car & Driver or Automobile for reports on long-term reliability. That is the job of Consumer Reports.
As for the political affiliation of Car & Driver: it always seemed more libertarian than anything else. Many people associate the “right” with “conservative,” and the magazine certainly isn’t “conservative” in the conventional sense. I still remember those naughty covers in the 1970s that got the magazine banned from more than a few school libraries…
The 8/8/07 Los Angeles Times review of the ‘08 Sebring convertible was scathing. A couple of quotes from the article about the Sebring: “(The Sebring) is bad, not just bad but a veritable chalice of wretchedness, a rattling, thumping, lolling tragedy of a car, a summary indictment of Chrysler’s recent management and its self-eradicating product planning, all cast in plastic worthy of a Chinese water pistol.”
And “The Sebring drop top does something I thought impossible: It makes me long for the exquisite craftsmanship of the Pontiac flipping G6″
Stephan,
I see your point that C&D et. al. are really entertainment, not actual news. They are essentially the male equivalent of Glamour or Cosmopolitan. We don’t expect Cosmo to write a scathing review of the new Calvin Klein line, they just show lots of pictures of attractive women in trendy clothes.
So why would we expect more from C&D? The reason lies within C&D’s claims, right on the cover. They say — “Subcompact Comparo”, or “G35, CTS and IS350 take on the 330.” Inherent in that headline is the assumption that the winner of a C&D comparison test is the best enthusiast car in its segment.
Not the car from the manufacturer with the most ad dollars to spend on buff mags.