Ask the Car People.SM


2008 Cadillac CTS

2880 messages,  Last post on Mar 14, 2013 at 9:16 AM

You are in the Cadillac CTS/CTS-V Forum.

What is this discussion about? Cadillac CTS-V, Cadillac CTS, Sedan

Messages Page 50 of 289

#486 of 2880 Re: 1487 [1487] by merc1

Jan 31, 2007 (1:12 am)

Replying to: 1487 (Jan 18, 2007 7:06 am)
When the CTS came out no one said it handled like a 10 year old BMW except you. Again, why dont you provide a reference for this assertion. This is your opinion, it's not grounded in reality. The CTS was definitely on par with the 5 series of that era and I'm sure that reviews reflect that. You are losing touch with reality.
 
Really, apparently you're defending GM cars on too many fronts to remember which criticism to say wasn't made. I'll direct your attention too:
 
Get past the styling that, to some, has been carved from a bar of soap, and underneath lies a first-rate effort to bring Cadillac into the 21st century. The target is BMW. It is still wide of that mark. A bull's-eye, perhaps, on a 10-year-old 7-series sedan, but not against a current 3- or 5-series from Munich.
 
C&D Comparo
 
Again, you asked for proof and there it is, let the excuse making begin. The CTS has never, ever been par with a 5-Series or 3-Series, only in your mind. You're the one that never was in touch with the reality of the CTS.
 
Wrong again. None of the quotes you provided addressed poor build quality. From what I remember they commented on the cheap look of the CTS/SRX interior and said the XLR's interior wasn't as nice at is should be for the price. Not the same as criticizing build quality. Why dont you provide the quotes you hold so dear to your heart?
 
Classic case of denial. The quotes spoke about build and material quality, again you say they didn't. Why keep going over and over the same thing when all you'll do is say that it isn't so?
 
Never said the interior was nice.
 
Yet every chance you get you'll tell us how competitive the CTS' interior was and how it didn't deserve the rep it got. Which is it?
 
Your right, it was up against the 530, 300, S80, S-type, A6, etc. None of its direct rivals. How did I miss that? Excellent point, its direct rivals are cars that beat it in a comparison I assume.
 
Yeah you missed it as always. Do you honestly think anyone looking at a 5-Series or A6 is going to look at a CTS? Not hardly. A Volvo S80 and S-Type aren't as defined and their prices aren't as steep as the German cars so they might be. Still I guess you've got to hang your hat on one comparo in which the CTS won against a group of cars that it isn't typically cross-shopped with. Typical GM denial and excuse making.
 
Yes it was out of touch. It had 300hp, did 0-60 in 6.5secs, had DVD nav, HIDS, heated seats, stability, 425 watt Bose 4.0 Sound System with 12" sub in the back, Magneride, CVRSS and all the luxury features expected of a car in this class. The car went out of production in 2003 so it cant be compared to what is on sale now, but to what was available in 2003. It held it's own even if you hate the car.
 
You just don't get it. Why is that when people defend GM cars they rattle off the spec sheet in a futile attempt to prove that GM cars are the equal of their competitors? All that junk doesn't mean squat if the car itself isn't built or performs as well as the competition. It is the details that GM doesn't sweat and their fans don't get.
 
The Lucerne, CTS, G6, 300 (not just C), Deville/DTS, '98 STS and 300M were (are) all successful.
 
Whatever that means. They sold, and all of them except the 300 were about exciting as watching grass grow. The fact that you can't see where those older cars like the 98 STS weren't anything compared to the competition of the day tells me you'll defend any and everything GM till the end of time. According to you everything GM makes is competitive and the equal of the competition. Then you turn around and say:
 
Only problem is I never said the STS was a great car.
 
Then what the heck is the point? Doesn't every car company strive to build great cars? If not then what is the use or motivation? Nothing but massive contradictions and excuses over and over and over here. The STS was success, but wasn't a great car? Who the heck cares about it then? Most cars are "successful" if you're going to add up sales numbers and call it day. My goodness the GM ailment is serious and seemingly incurable.
 
This is all part of your notion that GM never had any decent models on sale right now, they are always saying "wait until next year".
 
Right I missed the part in which you agreed with Rocky at every turn about what GM was going to do next year and how the "2007" models are no so much better, while trying to forget the crap GM already heaved onto the road prior.
 
In five years you'll be saying the '08 CTS is crap because newer models will be on the market.
 
Just like you're likely to be saying that it wasn't perfect, like you're doing with the old CTS...yet at the time you hyped it to be a BMW competitor, which it wasn't.
 
All in all another round of defending the old cars like they were something special and championing their flaws and saying they "held their own" when they did anything but. Denying proof when presented just like 1999 all over again 1487.
 
M

#487 of 2880 Re: [1487] by merc1

Jan 31, 2007 (1:22 am)

Replying to: 1487 (Jan 18, 2007 7:13 am)
Cadillac has been making nice interiors for the better part of a decade. Again, I suggest you look at the 90s STS/DTS/ETC interiors and compare them to what was being sold at that time. The Caddy interiors were very competitive and had the best gauges in the business except for Lexus.
 
Looked at them for years, there were 2 1998-2000 STS in the family at the time and those interiors were okay at best. Now you say they made "nice" interiors, but in the next sentence you'll say they were the equal of the competition, which they weren't.
 
The CTS (as I already stated) was actually a downgrade from the FWD Cadillacs but Caddy was trying to go in a completely new direction to change perceptions about the brand. In YOUR opinion the last gen Caddy interiors didnt measure up, but everyone doesn't share that belief and you cant PROVE that their interiors were lacking.
 
How do you prove such a thing? You and I won't ever agree on this, yet if you go outside of your GM forums you'll find the consensous is that Cadillac didn't measure up and that they still don't. The magazines have been saying this for years and continue to do so about the current STS and XLR, yet you'll come back with some excuses as usual.
 
The Germans did well in terms of materials, but in terms of design, ergonomics and aesthetic appeal the Cadillacs were better.
 
See this is what I'm talking about. This is nothing more than a grand excuse. Now you're saying that is ok to use sub-par materials, but long as it aesthetically appealing it is ok? That is nonsense. Part of having an aesthetically appealing interior is having nice materials to begin with!
 
what you dont get is that the luxury interiors of the German cars weren't more than "nice" 10 years ago. You have got them on a pedastal they do not deserve. Why is that so hard for the MB faithful to acknowledge? I rode in a last gen E class a few years back and I was just shocked at how plain and angular everything was. It was hard to believe that car probably cost well over $50k when it was new.
 
What you don't get is that Cadillac's interiors then were even worse, beyond them having softer leather they didn't have a thing on any German car other than their "aesthetic appeal" according to you.
 
Why are we stuck on 10 years ago? The same gripes are still there when it comes to Cadillac's current interiors. The XLR doesn't compare to the SL SC, or XK. The STS doesn't cut it next to the E,GS,M or A6. The outgoing CTS didn't cut it against various cars in that class either. The new one looks much better though.
 
Now I know what you're going to say, that those Cadillacs interiors are "nice" and that "they hold their own", but what you don't get is that Cadillac needs to do better, not merely be competitive.
 
M

#488 of 2880 Re: 1487 [chavis10] by merc1

Jan 31, 2007 (1:41 am)

Replying to: chavis10 (Jan 18, 2007 9:00 am)
ONE car went from FWD to RWD- the STS. The CTS was not around before Sigma. You prove that you have no technical knowledge whatsoever. In fact, I don't think you even understand anything about the dynamics of a vehicle. Your only source of knowledge are the driving impressions of journalists turned auto experts.
 
Chavis I was speaking about the STS, couldn't you follow that? No techinical knowledge, coming from the one that constantly uses magazine quotes and stats to prove their points about Cadillac's past failures. Ok right.
 
First off, let's define a chassis "aid" as you would like to call it. Whether it be Active Roll Stabilization, Airmatic DC, ABC, Magnetic Ride Control the goals are the same. All of them vary the reaction of chassis components to an outside force (road surface) over a larger range than possible with static settings. If you think of them as VVT systems on camshafts or an engine having a more useable powerband (long flat torque curve), u'll understand the point. It's not an "aid," it's effectively increasing it's range of reaction to varying degrees of wheel deflection. Some vary the dampers, others the springs and even anti-roll bars. These systems are optional on just about every mid-size and larger luxury car. According to your logic, simply because a car is RWD means it doesn't need such a system. Why then do even the Corvette, 911, Ferraris offer the exact same concept of CVRSS in their vehicles? Even when STS switched to Sigma, it still offers the same system offer in the FWD STS. At the time, Cadillac system was just as advanced in terms of the collection of data as the current offerings are now. The main difference is the amount of adjustments that can be made per second in which MRC leads them all at 1000 per second. Here are four RWD sedans that have chassis enhancement systems.
 
Good definition, but what you don't get is that none of those brands wasted time trying to get a FWD heap like a STS to handle like a 5-Series.
 
Also, your "average" BMW is a 3 series. If you had some knowledge, you'd understand that these systems are employed on heavier vehicles with higher horsepower. It's much easier to tune a car under 4000 lbs, that's simple logic.
 
Likewise if you had any knowledge you would have realized that what Cadillac was trying to do with the FWD STS was the most ridiculously drawn out, futile effort going at the time. It was just plain stupid and all the excuses in the world won't change the fact they they caved in and went RWD on the STS because all the electro junk had reached its limit and didn't come anywhere near providing the same result as a good RWD chassis did at the time.
 
What you don't seem to get here Chavis is that during the time Cadillac was trying to get everyone to buy into the whole CVRSS thing, no one else was really using chassis aids like they're doing now. The 5-Series of the time had no such electronic aids and it blew the STS and others away each and every other time it was compared. This is what you're not getting...you're using the cars of today and saying they're doing it now, but when Cadillac was doing it the Euros weren't and they still outhandled any FWD STS. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. Heck all the comeptition uses something now, but they didn't then and they produced a superior handling car, especially BMW.
 
Again, which car is responsible for the success of Lexus? The RX, not a sports car, not chasing europeans. Which car is the second most popular? the ES, not a sports car chasing europeans. You can't get out of your bubble to understand that everyone does not want or need a BMW.
 
Yet Lexus' more recent efforts like the GS and IS are indeed wannabe BMWs. Try again Chavis. In case you forgot, Lexus' entire being was done to chase the Europeans, specifcially Mercedes. The LS has been up until 2007 the biggest Mercedes wannabe ever devised.
 
Cadillac has a core group of buyers for the DTS.
 
Right, and it keeps getting smaller and smaller each year. Keep counting on this group while the rest of Cadillacs buyers get with modern times.
 
Also, who established the PROFITABLE crossover utility market? Lexus and every else has followed.
 
If it wasn't Lexus with the RX, I'd surely like to know who did? It surely wasn't Cadillac.
 
I'm glad you don't run a car company because they'd be out of business in about 6 months easy chasing some other company.
 
Likewise because the level of denial about the inferiority of Cadillacs past efforts would have ensured your company wouldn't have made it past the 90's.
 
So are you saying the car manufacturers are supposed to build cars for eunthusiasts with no regard for regular buyers? No sense of business whatsover and it's sad because regular buyers are the ones buying cars. I'd say the DeVille/DTS is what has enabled Cadillac to survive and produce newer more focused cars so it seems it has taken them very far.
 
Twist and turn everything around Chavis. Did I say that? I said that there are regular buyers and there are enthusiasts. Now just because Cadillac is saddled with a throwback like the DTS doesn't mean anyone has to care about a car like the DTS. Lexus does agree with you though, they make a smaller version called the ES350.
 
Actually I don't have a problem with cars like the DTS, but for you to sit here and say that Cadillac isn't trying to at the very least get with the program (i.e. European style cars) is just plum ridiculous. From the junky and ill-fated Allante to the Catera to the first CTS Cadillac has been trying to gain a foothold or following with the Euro car crowd for years. The STS-V and XLR-V are not for people who treasure the DTS and if you can't see that the DTS' days are numbers then you're in a deeper denial than I ever thought possible. Cadillac openly admits that BMW is the target for the next CTS-V, if that doesn't tell you where they're going or at least trying to go then nothing will. Keep cherishing the DTS, it won't be around for much longer.
 
M

#489 of 2880 Re: 1487 [chavis10] by merc1

Jan 31, 2007 (1:45 am)

Replying to: chavis10 (Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am)
When the 3 series faces larger cars, the others are immediately ripped for not being as small, nimble and sporty.
 
When has the 3-Series faced larger cars? The A4, C-Class, IS are all of the same class. Please don't give me some BS about a few inches in wheelbase. The only other car that is really larger is the G35 and the CTS.
 
M

#490 of 2880 Re: [chavis10] by merc1

Jan 31, 2007 (1:57 am)

Replying to: chavis10 (Jan 18, 2007 2:34 pm)
Forward your concerns to the GM management. I don't run the company or profit from their success. They've made cars that I liked in the past as well as products I'm interested in today. You keep talking about this legacy of GM that I really don't care about. Sorry, I wasn't around during the golden years of Cadillac's glory so I can only go on cars made in the last 20 years or so. As I said, I liked the last generation STS which was as technologically advanced as any other car in the class, period. That car came out in '98 almost 10 years ago, so this whole "Cadillac hasn't done squat in x amount of years" doesn't apply in my book.
 
The problem is that all that technology didn't give it any edge at what it was supposed to be there for, in fact for what all that tech was suppose to do the car still wound up being behind the competition.
 
That car came out in '98 almost 10 years ago, so this whole "Cadillac hasn't done squat in x amount of years" doesn't apply in my book.
 
Of course it wouldn't, since you still can't see or admit that the car was lacking and that the whole script had to be changed (fwd to rwd) to get with the program.
 
The point is you've been saying GM's car aren't this and that. Now you're trying to clean it up and say that "competitive" isn't good enough?
 
Wrong. I said that certain GM cars weren't anything in contrast to you're belief that most of if not everything they make is somehow equal to the competition. I mentioned competitive for your friend who seems to think that being competitive is the same as being as good as or better than the competition. Classic. The only thing I said was that "junk" wasn't fair and/or was too harsh. Most GM cars of today aren't that anymore, but there are some exceptions (Ion comes to mind).
 
Again, your opinions live in the press and are congruent with the non sense spoon fed on this site and other publications. This is what happens when you have a bunch of English/Journalism majors pretending to be auto experts.
 
Wow, is the same group that you'll be agreeing with if they pronounce the new CTS to be the best thing going? Nothing could be more hypocritical! Classic case of not liking what they say when they trash a GM product, yet agreeing with them and saying they've seen the light when they praise a GM product.
 
M

#491 of 2880 Re: [merc1] by 1487

Jan 31, 2007 (7:22 am)

Replying to: merc1 (Jan 31, 2007 1:22 am)
we enjoyed your absence. Please bless us with a repeat disappearance. YOur reasoning is flawed, you have no valid points and you continue to waste keystrokes trying to convince the world that Cadillac makes junk when that isnt the case. Do you really think you have won one single convert your anti-CAdillac position? I don't. Let's just agree that you hate Cadillacs and love MBs and call it a day. The reasons why you hate Cadillac are really unimportant at this point.
 
You are absolutely right, the CTS was a POS and the market backed you up on this. Sales dont count for anything, but your opinion and C&D's are gospel. Cadillac is just as bad as it was 10 years ago and they have yet to produce one vehicle that is a legit contender to the almighty MB. You have finally showed me the light. I think I'm going to go to my local MB dealer and get a $599 per month lease on a base model C class with its class leading interior.
 
Yes, the STS interior cannot compare to the sea of black E class interior. If you ask me those two cars are both trailing the GS when it comes to interior design.
 
BTW, did you ever notice the CTS is the oldest car in its class right now except for C class? Just wondering. You keep going on and on about how bad it is when it's about 6 months away from replacement. I thought it was normal for the oldest car in class to be inferior to newer models with fresh designs, but maybe that's only me.

#492 of 2880 Re: [1487] by displacedtexan

Jan 31, 2007 (7:26 am)

Replying to: 1487 (Jan 31, 2007 7:22 am)
we enjoyed your absence. Please bless us with a repeat disappearance.
 
Now, that's professional humor.
 
Seriously, though, the dialog going on between merc1 and 1487 is interesting and instructive.

#493 of 2880 Re: [merc1] by 1487

Jan 31, 2007 (8:14 am)

Replying to: merc1 (Jan 31, 2007 1:57 am)
"Wow, is the same group that you'll be agreeing with if they pronounce the new CTS to be the best thing going? Nothing could be more hypocritical! Classic case of not liking what they say when they trash a GM product, yet agreeing with them and saying they've seen the light when they praise a GM product. "
 
Kind of like you do when you quote C&D when they bash GM products (right down your alley) and then say they are biased when they routinely rank MB products behind BMWs and occasionally Lexus models. C&D is always right EXCEPT for when they don't rank your favorite brand #1 in comparisons. Got it.
 
When any publication ranks an underdog highly you tend to think that vehicle really impressed them. When C&D praises Hondas and Audis it really doesnt mean much because they love everything those brands put out. When C&D has been bashing American cars for the last 30 years or so and they like an American car (like '08 CTS) it tends to hold a little more weight because you know they are not fans of the brand or the automaker. It's actually a pretty simple thing to understand. For example, if a known sexist where to tell you he is impressed by a female manager and recommend her for a promotion you would be inclined to think that female must be one heck of a manager to overcome his bias and earn his respect.

#494 of 2880 Re: [1487] by merc1

Jan 31, 2007 (9:51 am)

Replying to: 1487 (Jan 31, 2007 7:22 am)
You know what the problem is here? You can't take any type of criticism on of a GM car. You'll come up with one excuse after another as to why GM cars are so this and so that. At no point did I say that the previous CTS or the new one was junk. Didn't say that at all. You have such a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to defending anything GM to the point where you make no sense at all. You seem to also think that someone is trying "win" someone over here. That is just lame, I coudln't care less about winning over anyone here. You don't seem to be able to understand anything. I said I actually saw the new CTS at Detroit and liked it, yet you come back and say I hate all Cadillacs. Ridiculous.
 
Sales dont count for anything, but your opinion and C&D's are gospel.
 
Why is that you're so hung up on sales? Now you asked for proof of what I stated earlier about the early takes on the previous CTS..then when I proved to you that it wasn't just something I made up, you come back with this sales BS. Most GM cars sell well and have done so for years and years, even when they were junk...so what does this prove? You can harp about sales forever and ever, it is only 1/2 of the equation....the other is how the car actually stacks up when compared. You'll just twist and spin to whichever point suits the GM car at the moment. One minute the car is a "success" then the next you say "I didn't say it was a great car". Talk about mass confusion, lost in a hypocritical mess.
 
Yes, the STS interior cannot compare to the sea of black E class interior. If you ask me those two cars are both trailing the GS when it comes to interior design.
 
Its called picking another color for the interior!
 
BTW, did you ever notice the CTS is the oldest car in its class right now except for C class? Just wondering. You keep going on and on about how bad it is when it's about 6 months away from replacement.
 
Classic "let us forget about the old car because the new one is coming". You couldn't have come up with a better way to prove my point about your excuse making. Nevermind the current car, wait till next year's model. Classic, classic, classic.
 
I thought it was normal for the oldest car in class to be inferior to newer models with fresh designs, but maybe that's only me.
 
Uh..the C-Class and CTS and A4 are all inferior to the 3-Series at this point incase you didn't notice. The C-Class didn't even have a decent engine until the 2006 model year so it was just as much of a laggered under the hood as the CTS was interior-wise. The A4 is still a nice car, but the 3, G and IS have moved the game onwards. I have no problem admitting when a Mercedes has been caught out, unlike you with any GM product. A 335i or G35 crushes a C350, A4 3.2 or your CTS at the moment.
 
M

#495 of 2880 Re: [1487] by merc1

Jan 31, 2007 (9:57 am)

Replying to: 1487 (Jan 31, 2007 8:14 am)
Kind of like you do when you quote C&D when they bash GM products (right down your alley) and then say they are biased when they routinely rank MB products behind BMWs and occasionally Lexus models. C&D is always right EXCEPT for when they don't rank your favorite brand #1 in comparisons. Got it.
 
Wrong again. I haven't said anything about a Mercedes in a C&D comparo in years. In case you hadn't been paying attention Mercedes has been on a winning streak with them anyway. The SL550, S600, S550 and E63 all winning comparos lately. Only the E550 lost one and surprise(!), unlike you I don't and didn't cry foul when the E550 lost. Beating the snot out of that GS450h may have had something to do with it!
 
When any publication ranks an underdog highly you tend to think that vehicle really impressed them. When C&D praises Hondas and Audis it really doesnt mean much because they love everything those brands put out.
 
Honda they do like, but not everything Audi. The just tested the S8 and basically said it wasn't worth the money over the regular A8. That isn't "love".
 
When C&D has been bashing American cars for the last 30 years or so and they like an American car (like '08 CTS) it tends to hold a little more weight because you know they are not fans of the brand or the automaker.
 
Problem is you almost got this right, but I agree with them thinking highly of the CTS is impressive. Problem is that you're in denial as to why they've been "bashing" (i.e. in the real world telling the truth) about American cars for 30 years. American cars weren't up to the competition to put it very, very lightly. Nine out of 10 times those "American cars" deserved every harsh word they got, but you'll say that they didn't and it goes on and on. Denial about the past at its best.
 
M

Messages Page 50 of 289

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement