Last post on May 09, 2013 at 9:32 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
BMW 3 Series, Infiniti G37, Acura TL, Lexus IS 350, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Cadillac CTS, Volvo S60, Audi A4, Acura TSX, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#8496 of 16087 Re: True cost to own: Acura vs. Cadillac... [joe131]
Mar 06, 2007 (4:46 am)
No disrespect to Edmunds, but their "true cost to own" figures are just plain B.S..
Do the depreciation calculations yourself. A CTS is expected to depreciate more than $22k over the first 3 yrs. My TL has depreciated less than $9k over that time. So far, in 18 months, I can sell my 911S for about $11-13k less than I paid for it. If my true cost to own a 1995 Maxima w/ 155k miles was remotely close to what Edmunds would have estimated, I wouldn't have a 911S as living proof otherwise.
For somebody truly in love with a Cadillac such that they will keep it 10+ years, resale value isn't much of a factor. But if you buy any GM, short of a Corvette, practice bending over and grabbing your ankles.
#8498 of 16087 Re: Say what?... [joe131]
Mar 06, 2007 (6:43 am)
I highly doubt it. You know it's true.
#8499 of 16087 Re: Coming to a dealer near you this spring... [blueguydotcom]
Mar 06, 2007 (6:47 am)
"Okay, the CTS is severely lacking compared to an A3 or A4. The CTS is heavy, large, numb, overpriced and understeers too much, while feeling cheap throughout. I regret every moment I've spent driving a CTS. "
That statement shows that you are incredibly biased and uncredible. The CTS and any other RWD sports sedan is more balanced than a front heavy Audi. The CTS is no larger or heavier than the 5 series, A6, E350, etc. so your statement makes no sense. In fact, the CTS is lighter than the A6 last time I checked even though the cars are essentially the same size. Every review of the CTS I have seen has had praise for the steering feel and the CTS does not understeer any more than other sedans in this class. It surely has less propensity to understeer than an Audi.
#8500 of 16087 Re: Coming to a dealer near you this spring... [circlew]
Mar 06, 2007 (6:50 am)
"I guess you aren't a real driving enthusiast since you really can not tell the difference. Don't get me wrong. I respect all of your view points. To each his own. "
Again, if you actually read enthusiast magazines you would know that my "opinions" about the CTS have been widely verified. This is not something I am making up just because I dont like the 5 series, this is fact. Just say you dont like the CTS or any other non-BMW luxury sedans but dont be foolish enough to suggest that BMW doesnt have any legit competitors in this segment. You are suggesting that I'm too uninformed to realize that the CTS cant hold a candle to a 5 series, but I already told you that the CTS beat the 525 (and other cars) in a R&T comparison and they had nothing but good things to say about it's handling. Please explain that since you are such an authority on enthusiast driving.
#8501 of 16087 Re: Coming to a dealer near you this spring... [shipo]
Mar 06, 2007 (7:05 am)
"First off, letís lose the bilge water about what auto rags have written. They far too often stack the deck one way or another for their opinions to really mean much as a general statement."
Most auto mags like BMWs so I dont get your point. Are you saying we should disregard their opinions when they praise BMW products, or just Cadillacs? Just want to get clarity.
" I have no idea who or what opined that the CTS was a legit contender, but I have to question its motives. Those two cars were as different as night and day and there is no way the CTS of that era was even qualified to sniff the fumes of the 530i. "
One one hand we have my personal experience and the word of numerous magazines. On the other hand we have your biased opinion of the CTS which is a car you test drove in order to criticize since you are obviosuly a BMW owner and die hard fan. Which side should I believe? I also drove the 530 back to back with the STS V6 and the BMW had no clear advantage. Your bias is eroding the little credibility you have left at this point. Almost everyone knows the CTS is a real sports sedan, perhaps its time for you to acknowledge this instead of comparing it to an Accord. BTW, does the CTS-V fit into your description of the CTS as a soft, half baked sports sedan? Just wondering.
"The engine had also been dramatically improved over the early models, so much so that Iíd even go so far as to say that it was competent. Not as smooth as an I6, but then no V6 is so no loss there. That said, the carís suspension was still sloppy, the seats were still uncomfortable, and the ergonomics still werenít ergonomic. "
Wow, competent? Thanks! I'm sure Cadillac execs can sleep well at night knowing that you thought the 3.6V6 was competent. Sloppy suspension? Thats way off base and everything you are saying totally contradicts what we know to be true about the CTS. I'm wondering how the CTS made it around the Ring with that Buick soft suspension you are describing. As for the interior, I havent said anything positive about it so I fail to see why you continue to insult the interior design.
"Ummm, do you rely on the car magazine for all of your opinions? I mean really, who gives a crap what a car magazine says? "
Thats exactly what I say when people try to use magazines as proof that BMWs are clearly superior to the competition. I like the CTs interior based on the pics, but the magazines (and Edmunds) share my opinion. People who have been in the car at the show also said it feels as good as it looks. Dont know what else to tell you. I cant take anyone seriously who thinks the '08 CTS interior is crap. That just shows you refuse to give credit where it's due. Any complaints about the 300hp engine or 6 speed transmission? Let me guess, you dont believe the magazines when they say those features will be available.
"No, I think that youíre parroting the scribes who regurgitate the marketing bilge fed to them by the auto companies. "
If these scribes were praising BMWS (which they do) would you stil be insulting them? Of course not. They are merely pointing out the positive features of a car they like. If you honestly think that publications like MT and C&D which are known for slamming GM products are just making this stuff up or repeating what GM told them to say you are truly out of touch. The car is nice and they wanted to convey that in their reports from the NAIAS. simple as that.
"Oh, and FWIW, the same day I drove the CTS 6-Speed last year, I drove an A3 2.0T 6-Speed. Yikes, what a difference."
Yikes! The CTS is only about 4 years older than the A3 and thus it makes sense that the A3 seems fresher in terms of design and execution. The CTS is in its final few months of production and you are wasting keystrokes criticizing a 5 year old design that is about to be retired. I wouldnt buy the 2007 CTS at this point with the new car coming out. Cadillac addressed your criticisms of the car and you are stills saying the '08 is mediocre at best. Go figure.
#8502 of 16087 Re: Coming to a dealer near you this spring... [habitat1]
Mar 06, 2007 (7:16 am)
"First, don't even think about putting Cadillac and Lexus in the same sentence as if they have something in common vs. German cars. "
Are you seriously stating that cars like the GS, IS, STS, CTS, etc. have ntohign in common with the C, E, 3 and 5? LOL! YOu have got to be kidding me dude. I know that Lexus doesnt offer manuals but aside from that it is completely absurd to sit here and say Lexus and Caddy sports sedans arent even in the same ballpark. First of all MB and Audi models cant even get with BMWs in handling and thus they are no better than CAddy or Lexus models. If BMW has an edge, its a very slight edge that cant even bee noticed in street driving.
"Second, there is no "substantive" reason in the world that anyone should pay any more than $25,000 for a CTS. My 2004 Acura TL 6-speed cost $32,400 new and is now worth (30,000 miles), according to Edmunds, $24,600 on trade-in value. That's a total of $7,700 in depreciation. "
Never said the CTS is a leader in resale value but I have to admit your numbers seem a little off. I rarely see used CTS models around here for under $24k or so. Are those numbers based on one particular car you saw for sale or did you get that from kbb? sorry but $40K to $18k in three years seems a little off to me. We all know that Acuras have good resale value and if that is your only concern than the TL is great. Of course to people who want RWD the TL isnt an option.
Since we are talking about resale value I think is important to note that the amount saved when buying and financing a new car is significant. If you save $100 a month by getting a CTS over a German car and invest that over the course of your finacning period (60 months) I think that $6000 could earn enough to offset the difference in depreciation. But I'm sure you've already thought of that.
#8503 of 16087 Re: True cost to own: Acura vs. Cadillac... [habitat1]
Mar 06, 2007 (7:19 am)
"But if you buy any GM, short of a Corvette, practice bending over and grabbing your ankles. "
Actually their trucks and SUVs have pretty good resale value. Wrong again.
#8504 of 16087 Re: Coming to a dealer near you this spring... 
Mar 06, 2007 (7:25 am)
If you drive both cars for over 500 miles in mixed driving and on the track, you will feel the difference. If not, see may last statement.
BTW, it's great to use the rags for a guide but they are far from Gospel. Who's buying these cars anyway? YOU.
#8505 of 16087 Re: Coming to a dealer near you this spring... 
Mar 06, 2007 (7:38 am)
The CTS is no larger or heavier than the 5 series, A6, E350, etc. so your statement makes no sense. In fact, the CTS is lighter than the A6 last time I checked even though the cars are essentially the same size.
Who brought up that big egg the a6? I didn't. I brought up the A3/A4 - cars I know drive better than a CTS.
Every review of the CTS I have seen has had praise for the steering feel and the CTS does not understeer any more than other sedans in this class.
I've driven the CTS. The hack journalists never really tear into cars for being underperformers. The art of automobile critique - much like film critique - has been reduced to either high praise or middling support with enough superlatives to keep the ad dollars flowing. Anyone recall the flap when the LA times' car guy tore into GM? What happened? Yeah, GM pulled advertising. So tell me, can I trust a magazine with ad dollars at stake over my OWN experience? No. My money is more important to me than what some pandering auto journalist writes to protect his job.
It surely has less propensity to understeer than an Audi.
not in my experience. The front end dive on the CTS was laughably awful. It was more akin to driving a plow, than a sport sedan. When I mentioned the dive to the car salesman, he just said, "This is a caddy. It's tuned for comfort."