Last post on Mar 14, 2013 at 8:16 AM
You are in the Cadillac CTS/CTS-V
What is this discussion about?
Cadillac CTS-V, Cadillac CTS, Sedan
#2271 of 2880 Re: 2009 CTS [bingoman]
Apr 22, 2008 (3:30 pm)
I doubt that any dealer knew about specifications or materials changes ahead of next year model announcement; itís a possibility that the company might increase the engine horsepower, or the quality or the intensity of the sunroof screen without a change in 2009 ordering guide. Itís also a possibility that Cadillac donít want to announce all 2009 improvement at this point so they can sell their 2008 existing and coming stocks without deep discount. As for automatic cruise I would rather have an infra-red camera for night vision than the ďAdaptive Cruise ControlĒ which has been proven not very reliable yet in luxury cars that have it.
I had to drive about 35 miles away from where I live to see different Cadillac Dealer. The salesman was very helpful and told me that he thinks he might locate a CTS built with PDQ (luxury collection) without the sunroof, but I doubt it. He also said that I wasnít the first one to complaint from the sunroof screen and the Cadillac representative is aware of the problem; adding ďknowing Cadillac, from past experience, they donít react as fast as they shouldĒ. He also assured me that Blue Tooth will be no problem in future CTS.
I have sunroof in my Lexus along with every car Iíve owned/leased for the last 15 years; never had problem with sunroof and never complaint from it; matter of fact I love it. I just donít understand what Cadillac had in mind when they designed a controversial sunroof that can not properly cover it.
In September 2007, I went with my dad to buy his new 08 CTS, and that was suppose to be his fifth or sixth Cadillac, he ends up buying a Mercedes E350 just because of the translucent sunshade; itís simply not acceptable.
#2272 of 2880 Re: 2009 CTS [genuisity]
Apr 22, 2008 (4:16 pm)
The dealers have already been issued the specs and color samples for the 2009's. They are taking orders for the '09's.
As to my speculations as to the options I hoped would be added for '09, they were based on some observations and my own personal hopes. I held out buying an '08 based on those hopes and observations.
As to the backup camera, one of the engineers on the Caddy blog said I should 'stay tuned' when I asked about the camera, but it was not to be. The hope for power folding mirrors was based on the presence of an extra switch on the mirror control panel below the mirror switch in the photo of the black interior in the '08 brochure. I thought Cadillac would respond to the complaints of the translucent sun roof shade but they have not. The other items where pure speculation based on options on other similar priced cars.
I hope your father enjoys his Mercedes, but I will stick with the CTS.
#2273 of 2880 Re: Response to Ims2 [sryn]
Apr 23, 2008 (2:51 am)
From what I understand the hands-free capability is linked to onstar. The salesman says that verizon wireless users will get a new "free" phone number that automatically forwards to your mobile phone. But nonverizon users may have to pay for the new number/account. And of course onstar isn't free for more than 1 year. I haven't confirmed this information.
Bluetooth is pretty standard is most luxury cars and some nonluxury cars. It is a wireless radio technology that allows your mobile (if it has bluetooth built in- most recent phones do) to communicate with your car's bluetooth system. A car microphone picks up your voice and transmits it to your mobile. People speaking with you are routed through your car speakers. The tech is not perfect- pairing is sometimes problematic, sometimes mobile's contact will not be downloaded by car's bluetooth. But when it works, it is really good and removes the need for a bluetooth headphone or earbud. I don't use a bluetooth headphone but a good car system should be clearer and eliminate the need to fumble around for the earbud.
Hope this helps.
I hope the cts offers bluetooth. I am still deciding on my next car when my Inifini m35x lease is up.
#2274 of 2880 Re: Response to Ims2 [ewl88]
Apr 23, 2008 (8:53 am)
Adding my 2 cents, I'm sure Cadillac has a sound reason for not including Bluetooth in this vehicle, but it's a clear competitive disadvantage. If an owner utilizes Verizon as their cellular provider the work around is fairly effective. Verizon will set up a number to be linked to OnStar which will utilize the same bucket of minutes. This works for outbound calls but inbound callers must dial the OnStar versus cell phone number. Call forwarding from your cell to the car does not cure this problem as double minutes are utilized. If the car owner does not utilize Verizon, then essentially you are paying for an extra phone line.
Add-on Bluetooth kits are available but I'm not a fan of customizing a brand new vehicle. Alternatively, buy a $100 Bluetooth earpiece and live with the inconvenience.
(That being said, I love my CTS and will live without Bluetooth for now.)
#2275 of 2880 2008 CTS fair price
Apr 27, 2008 (7:11 am)
A Cadillac dealer, about 35 miles away from home, is trying to locate a CTS with all options, without a roof, emailed me saying that he might have one for me in few days.
According to Edmunds.com the average loaded CTS is sold about $1,000 above invoice, and according to Costco their negotiated prices should be better than the average price at Edmunds.
My question is how much did you pay "ladies and gentlemen" above invoice? Excluding incentive, GM card pay back, Employee/Supplier discountÖetc.
Your input is really appreciated
#2276 of 2880 2008 CTS Rear Visibility
Apr 27, 2008 (9:45 am)
My mother wants to buy a new car to replace our 10 year old Buick Century. Currently, I do all the driving for her. She would like another Buick. I asked our local Buick dealer to get a LaCrosse Super for me to test drive. I was told NO way, wait for the 2010 model. Whatever. Their loss, my gain.
I really like the 2008 CTS, especially the RED color. I have sat in one but did not drive it due to the tiny rear window. I am only 5'6" tall and my mother is much shorter than I am. When I drive, I never use the outside mirrors. I turn and check to my left or right. Will the design of the rear of the CTS give me any visibility to the left or right when I turn to look or will the headrests and rear pillars block my view?? If there's no visibility to the rear, I'll forget the CTS and move on.
All comments appreciated. We really need new wheels and I want a sporty type vehicle. The CTS is about the only American car that I would consider at this time. Thanks to all.
Apr 28, 2008 (5:50 pm)
Why would you have to wait for the 2010 LaCross Super model, which is TWO model years away???...
#2278 of 2880 Re: horns1976 [marsha7]
Apr 29, 2008 (4:51 am)
Yeah, that kind of perplexes me too--my GM dealer has had one on the lot for at least three months with no takers. Why would a dealer not want to sell you a car NOW? Surely they don't expect you to wait two years?
#2279 of 2880 Re: horns1976 [bryan]
Apr 29, 2008 (5:05 am)
I agree with bryan and marsha's comments. The dealer didn't want a Super on his lot if I didn't buy it. That's the bottom line. The head honcho said the new LaCrosse will be out in Oct. 2008. I say no way.
I still plan to check out the 2008 CTS further. I really like the car and it has received positive reviews. One knock on the CTS is "rear visibility." I guess I'll see for myself if I drive the vehicle.
#2280 of 2880 Re: 2008 CTS Rear Visibility [horns1976]
Apr 29, 2008 (10:14 am)
My mother is in almost the same situation. She wants a new car but something smaller than her LeSabre. Ie - about the size of the old Regal/Century.
Buick makes no such cars.
If she doesn't mind going a bit larger, though, there is a good alternative, though. Get her a 2007 or 2008 Certified Lacrosse CXS. This car has several things going for it:
1:The 3.6VVT engine is from the CTS. It's geared, though, for low-end torque instead of high-end HP. As a result, it's *faster* than a base CTS around town, since the torque jumps to nearly maximum(looks like a flat line almost) at about 1600rpm. Far below that of the CTS. It has zero lag as a result. So it feels very eager and fast, like the CTS. It also can, as a result, pass quickly in overdrive without having to drop down a gear. It feels like the world's smallest V8 instead of a V6 the way they've set it up.
Their change to the 3.9 is because they need the 3.6 engines for the CTS, which brings me to point #2.
2: It's a front wheel drive CTS with a Buick badge on it, and it costs a LOT less. GM makes less profit off of it than the CTS, which is why their limited 3.6VVT production is going there from no on. The 3.9 is a revamped 3.8 and drives like it. laggy, hunting for gears, throttle lag... it's a joke compared to the 3.6. The Super is really an overblown version of the same nonsense. Why pay premium money for the latest bling when you can get a CTS mechanically, or close to it, for less money?
3:It has the same suspension as well as the first generation CTS. It's a massive improvement over the typical slush and wobble that Buicks normally have. I drove a normal LaCrosse and this back to back and it was like someone turned the "suck" switch off and it transformed from a toad to a little tiger. It really is a drastic change.
Note - the Lucerne CXS is also a similar eye-opener. It reminded me of a late 90s S420. Like no Buick I've ever driven. Big, solid, powerful, and tight.
4:It's family and older person friendly. Good interior, nice seating, and exactly what most people in their 50s and 60s want. It's also easy to see out of the rear. The optional bench seat up front opens up the front to where it feels much roomier inside as well - almost like a slightly smaller Lucerne. My mom was impressed. It also can be had in a nice light leather interior, unlike the G6(black leather only).
5:It's inexpensive. As I mentioned, a one year old certified version can be had for well under $20K now. With the remainder of the recent 5 year/100K mile warranty.
6:The transmission is the venerable 4 speed GM. This is actually a GOOD thing. First off, these are a whopping $1600-$1800 to fix compared to $3500+ for a Camry. No joke. Price a CTS transmission rebuild versus a Camry or most anything else with 5-6 gears in it. $3500-$4500. Ouch.
The 4 speed is exactly right for a car with loads of low rpm torque like the Lacrosse CXS and the Lucerne CXS, because they need to shift less often. You get a smooth ride and the thing has the torque to muscle its way to the next gear.
GM's mistake was mating it in the original designs with the 3.8 and 3.9, which is a typical pushrod design made to get good EPA ratings and as a result deliver maximum power at 4800rpm or so. So it developed closer to 120lb-ft of torque and maybe 130hp driving around town. Got great gas mileage, but drove like a turd. It needed more gears, since it was programmed to shift at about 2500rpm unless you floored it. The gearing was also so high, that to do this, you needed to keep it manually in 2nd until about 50mph to reach maximum HP. 3rd maxxed at almost 90mph, and overdrive was impossible - well over the design limits for the car(130 or so). This wasn't red line, either - just where you managed to get the listed HP!.
First gear maxxed out at 25mph, leaving a suspicious hole between first and second, which is why it was such a turd around town. The thing sounded like it would explode at 25mph and then boom - 230HP to 130HP at 30mph and then a long climb up to maximum again. And the torque converter locking up if you let off for an instant at any speed over 35mph didn't help, either. I know the 3.8 well - I lived with four of them through the 80s and 90s. But the 4 speed IS a very reliable and bulletproof transmission. Just they stuck it on everything when it was made designed to work with V8s.
The CXS, though, is like an old 60s V8. Less gears is fine(and less money to maintain/fix) because it has no lag down low. You blip the throttle 1/5th the way down and you're at maximum torque instantly. Mile high gearing works well in this case. And it's why old V8s did fine with 3 speed automatics - with 400hp+ on tap, there wasn't any situation where it lacked for power. Plus, the 3.6 is a very smooth and refined engine.
The only other car that I would recommend would be an IS300. The IS350 is overkill and the 250 is underkill - it's worse than a typical Camry V6. The IS300 had a better engine, handles a bit better since it's 200lbs lighter, and a certified version is quite inexpensive. And you can see out of the back, unlike the new IS. It is the only Toyota I ever drove that reminded me of a Volvo or BMW from the 90s. Completely European sport sedan feel - but with some luxury as well.
The paddle shifters plus the I-6 and RWD made for a very good car.
A typical example of a LaCrosse CXS.