By Justin Berkowitz
November 19, 2007 -
Ever sit around on a Sunday around noon with your buddies and say "I could go for some Domino's or Papa John's." You know that obviously neither of the two is up to Michelin guide standards, and in fact neither one of them is even real pizza. But damn man, they really hit the spot. Well that's the new Cadillac CTS. It's snazzy looking, it's fun to drive, it's got all the toppings you could ask for. It's just not a Cadillac.
The CTS’s exterior has all the trappings of a modern luxury car. It's dripping with shine and sparkle– like it just stepped out of some kind of chromium-shower. The massive grille overtakes the entire front of the car, sporting a brash design language. You might just call the car vulgar and gaudy, like a pair of rhinestone-covered Gucci sunglasses. Or you could say that it's resolutely nouveau-riche.
But step back and admire the profile and the back end, and the CTS is undeniably elegant. The first generation CTS, Cadillac's exercise in "ultra-modern" styling, mimicked the F-117A stealth jet (which entered service in 1983). But it was starved for details. The “new” CTS rights the old wrongs. I'm ashamed that I like the thin chrome vent on the fender because its fine lines balance the slab-sided sheetmetal. Same goes for the C-Pillar. Yes, it's as abrupt and sharp as stiletto glinting in a dark alley. But the pillar gives the car's angled motif new definition and meaning.
The deal sealer/deal breaker: does the CTS stand out on the road? In 1959, you'd have to be blind [from snacking on lead paint chips] to confuse a Cadillac Eldorado with anything else. By this metric, the Cadillac CTS comes up short. While it's far more than another generic sedan, it fails the "mom" test. Would Mom know, on sight, that the CTS is a Cadillac? Even when considering a wider demographic, the odds of the CTS garnering quintessential Caddy props are none to slim.
And then there's the interior. When peering into a CTS through the window of an example parked outside the geriatric specialist's office super cool young person nightclub 7-11, the cabin looks exceptional. In both appearance and execution, it's GM’s best effort in decades. The pleather covering the CTS' dash, finished with "French-stitching," and the charming chrome chevron symbols on the seats embody the interior’s tasteful elegance. The design is miles ahead of most competitors, and the build quality is a lot more than merely adequate. If this was an interior from another manufacturer, we'd be all set.
But it’s a Cadillac. It's supposed to embody and project superiority. The press kit boasts that "world-class was the target. There was no plan B." So why do some of the buttons feel Impala flimsy? Why does the analog clock look only slightly more classy than a Chinatown Fauxlex? What's up with the 1992 font on the buttons and shift-gate?
When it comes to driving, the CTS is the un-Caddy. Fire-up the silent spinning 3.6-liter six. Mash the gas and the 263-horse base engine growls with accelerative intent. Click the shifter into manual mode, hold those revs, and the needle races to redline like a Civil War veteran sprinting the final 100 yards to his homestead. Let loose the dogs of Detroit, explore the outer reaches of the torquey powerband, and the CTS simply annihilates the asphalt. Unless you've got Stirling Moss in your family tree, this is not your grandfather's anything.
Without the sports-package, you get a King David suspension, neatly walking the line between luxury pampering and corner-carving hoonery. The CTS will soak-up most of the nasty stuff under foot and then romp through the twisties like a sharp-toed greyhound. The steering strikes a similar balance. The CTS isn't a Lotus Elise (a rabidly unfair comparison), but neither is it a one-finger driver.
In sum… This is where things get uncomfortable. The CTS is 96 percent there. The question is, where? What is this thing? Before you hit the comment box suggesting I take some Valium and crank-up the Pink Floyd, hear me out. The CTS is an almost perfectly executed automobile. But the bigger issue (if the smaller percentage) is the car's identity crisis.
Is the CTS a luxury car? A sports sedan? It's great at both but magnificent at neither. So we're left with a good looking, comfortable, fun-to-drive American sedan. A solid sales hit. But a car brand can't sustain itself (or keep buyers coming back for more) without some kind of identity. As GM's great hope for the once triumphant, archetypal Cadillac brand, the CTS needs to be more than 96 percent something. It needs to be 100 percent Cadillac. And that it ain’t.
Subscribe to Newsletter
More Reviews106 Responses to “ Take Two: Cadillac CTS Review ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
November 19th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Nice work, Justin: you feel the same way I do. Standard of the World? Not quite yet. Especially when a lowly Impala SS has a monstrous 5.3L V8 for way less coin. There should be no compromises with a Caddy, and you shouldn’t get schooled by an Impala on your powertrain skills. (not that I’m recommending the Impala, I just know its motor belongs in an American RWD luxury sedan)
But the CTS’ base engine sure has the torque thing down: IIRC its torque numbers are similar to the DI 3.6L but the peak comes at 1000revs lower. Definitely more Cadillac-like. Nice.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I think Cadillac is in a tough spot. They needed to reinvent themselves because people no longer accepted the “land yacht” concept of the 80’s to mid 90’s. The competition offered vastly superior driving dynamics in addition to better build quality and more efficient packaging. To me the CTS represents Cadillac’s attempt to deliver those qualities, but they’re still struggling to find where they fit in among BMW, Mercedes et al. Yes, their cachet came from such cars as the Eldorado, but the market has changed since the 60’s. So how much “heritage” do they keep as they reinvent themselves? That’s a difficult question and it seems to me that GM has been trying hard to find the right answer. Their biggest sin is that they’re not delivering on build quality. I agree that cheap-looking-anything doesn’t belong in these cars if Cadillac wants to succeed. With the Germans faltering in reliability, now would be a great opportunity for Cadillac to become the “standard of the world” by offering brickhouse solidity and attention to detail that drove customers to the likes of Mercedes in the first place.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
The problem with this CTS is the exterior looks dated already. It looks too similar to the previous gen CTS. Then there is the rear end; the previous CTS has a more aggressive looking rear end. This CTS has a rear end that looks like it came from some 1982 Cadillac. It’s big, square and blocky. Hardly what I would call modern.
The CTS like the new Malibu has a big problem; it’s competitive but it’s not class leading. To win conquest buyers you need to have class leading vehicles and GM isn’t delivering that.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Maybe we need a Take Three…
I’ve driven the new CTS a few times at this point. The base suspension is way too soft. The mid-level FE2 is far better.
Some people absolutely love the front end. I know, because my father (whose taste tends to be quite good) just ordered one–his first GM car since a 1983 Pontiac 6000 STE. And he did this because of the styling, inside and out.
The grille might be large, but it’s much better integrated into the design than, say, Audi’s.
I think you’ll find that once a few of these are on the road, it’ll have no problem with the mom test.
A car that certainly fails the mom test: the Infiniti M. I took my father to test drive one after we drove the CTS. We ended up not even driving the car because the exterior styling is so pudgy and anonymous.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Through TrueDelta I’m hoping to provide a quick reliability result for the new CTS. If you know someone who buys one (or buy one yourself) please send them here:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
November 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Then again…
Is there still a market for “a real Cadillac”?
And by that I mean apart from 70+ pensionados and (maybe) rappers. To focus on that group doesn’t really seem like a good long-term strategy to me either.
Like clothes and other products, it seems to me that Americans car buyers have finally seen the light and turn to cars tuned to European tastes or simply European cars. Especially at the high end.
So Cadillac HAS to adapt and built better handling cars, for instance tuned at the Nordschleife. This CTS seems a reasonabily competitive product in that case.
Maybe they their new brand identity should be “the European car made by Americans”.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I think at the lower end of the “high end” car market there is really only 1 design archetype to which all others aspire and it’s the 3-series. I don’t think Cadillac had much choice but to join the rush for a 3-series equalizer.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Justin, I think you answered your own question as to what is a Cadillac these days:
“…CTS a luxury car…A sports sedan..It’s pretty good at both…So we’re left with a good looking, comfortable, fun-to-drive car. I love it.”
Sporty enough without needing a kidney girdle. Plush enough to feel pampered and rewarded. Cool enough that you can take pride without further explanation…features enough to use your other gadgets.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
It’s not 1959 anymore (fortunately). Wax nostalgically about the ridiculous tail fins, but a 1959 Mercedes sedan was the much better car than the wallowing, under-braked, fuel-hog Caddy barge. And the Mercedes model of car building won. It’s a new world for Caddy, and the standard of comparison are its competitiors, not ridiculous and irrelevant ghosts of another era.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Great review & carving a believable identity is really tricky for Cadillac. I have not yet driven a CTS (1st gen or this one), but I do find the updated styling striking and (relatively) unique out on the road. I intend to get to a dealer during the holidays to see & drive one in person - maybe my fondness for it will be dampened.
I think Cadillac’s biggest identity challenge is that the rest of their line up is not yet synced with the CTS & lesser extent Sclade. One of BMWs most striking qualities is the continuity of the experience they impart across their line-up (put iDrive frustrations aside). Even though the HxWxL of their products changes, the basic BMW-ness of them is there (X3 assembled in Austria has arguably the weakest link). Until Lutz & Co get the STS resolved & render a decision whether to extend the Caddy offering down into the “small car”, 3-series footpritn, I think it’ll be impossible to forge a differentiated, American identity anchored to just two diametrically opposed competitive products…