Cadillac STS-V RIP

bunkie - exactly right. The STS doesn't suck but it also doesn't shine. By any sensible metric the first-gen CTS sucked. The platform was pretty good, but the engine was weak, the aesthetics dubious, the material quality awful. But the price was right, and it had enough character to overcome its weaknesses and attract buyers. The first-gen CTS-V was a great car in large part because it was something GM so rarely ever did - a very flawed car with a personality strong enough to overwhelm the flaws. You could recite chapter and verse on what was wrong with it but once you'd driven it none of that mattered. It was the less-than-pretty girl who could wrestle you until you passed out exhausted, then wake you up and hump you raw. The STS fixed many of the original CTS' failings - the shape isn't awkward, the interior isn't trash - but whether by design or by accident they managed to create a car with no real personality. Size-wise it's stuck in no man's land between the 5-series/E-class and the big battleships, the styling is bland, the driving experience is competent but not special, the pricetag is moderate but so's the feature set. Has it been a sales success? Probably not, certainly it doesn't pull the kind of per-unit margins that a 750i or an LS460 does (which is really what a car in that segment has to do) but it's been a necessary evolutionary step toward a fully-formed Cadillac product. The new CTS is a jewel, the shape's a home run, the interior is gorgeous, as long as they can keep the build quality up it's the first Cadillac product since the '60s (maybe the '50s) that can be said to be world-class with no asterisks and no excuses. As for the STS-V, everything I needed to know about that car I learned the first time I sat down in one. It had the same cheap, flat seats as the original CTS-V (I'm still quite certain that one Saab 9-5 seat cost more than an entire first-gen CTS interior) but, rather than the crucial grippy Alcantara insert that made the seats work tolerably well in the CTS, the STS-V had perforated leather. "Aha, a cruiser, a seven-tenths car, because you could never stay behind the wheel going around corners anyway." Its most obvious competitor, then, would have been the Jag XJR, but while the Jag may not be all that fast by modern rocket-sedan standards, it does feel special.

Even if GM wasn't dying, the STS-V no longer has a place in the lineup with the existence of the CTS-V.

There are a lot of comparisons to the new CTS. Sorry, but I'm not that impressed with it. Four star crash rating up front is pretty sad for an all-new effort. The second, make that first, thing that would make it a no-sale for me is that damn center console intruding on my right knee. It took me all of a few seconds sitting in one to realize that it would be hell down the road. That and some of the poor build quality reported from Edmunds long-term tests also make me realize that it is still GM taking shortcuts. No thanks. I'll take a BMW or Audi. The STS is, of course, too small. It's also too damn cheap feeling - plain and simple. There are far too many sharp interior edges and plastic crap that Audi wouldn't even allow in their trunk finishing, let alone in the cabin space. The lack of attention to detail with Cadillac is staggering. There are plenty of world-class cars out there from BMW, Audi and Lexus to simply try and at least copy to some extent that there is no excuse for Cadillac. They are lost. That CTS ain't gonna save 'em either.