First Look! New CTS Rendering!

[Guest Josh]

By Chris Pauwels over @ GMSource

[Cadillacfan]

This being drawn by Chris, there is a 97% chance that this is what the next CTS will look like plus or minus a few details and that's very good in my opinion.

Cadillac is really going to shine with this vehicle. All the haters should hurry up and get their jabs in now on the current CTS because they'll have nothing to say when this one comes out.

[Cremazie]

I like the overall profile, just the rear door looks like it is off of a G6! I think that this CTS will kick real butt!

[-Camaro-]

Well from the 60 minutes pictures and this, I can tell the new CTS will look more upscale than the current CTS, STS, and DTS... This CTS will render the STS and DTS useless, because it'll be nicer.

[bcs296]

That looks awesome.

[balthazar]

Why is the hot link dead for me?

[Guest Josh]

I think the site is down.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Still isn't working.

[Flybrian]

Uh-oh.

[Satty]

I really thought that site was on the verge as taking over as the #1 source for GM news. Such a strong membership.

[Mr.Krinkle]

four people mustve clicked on it at the same, it had an overload and crashed.

what a tease.

[Guest Josh]

It's incredible that we don't have 1k members especially now since the site has recently officically launched. I hate the motto "work in progress."

At anyrate, Chris's work can be viewed as the site is now up.

[Sixty8panther]

Very Cool!

[KillFort]

The rendering is nice but I hope those are not the headlight units.

It's missing those little steps in the headlight housing from the 60-minute video.

Edited July 15, 2006 by KillFort

[balthazar]

I don't care for the DTS-esque grille-headlight 'step' (where the grille projects forward of the headlights), nor the mini fender vent 'teetering' on the point of the side glass trim. It also looks a bit 'softer' than the 1st gen. I give it a B vs. the A I feel the 1st gen is.

[Cory Wolfe]

Eh... It looks like a modified STS. Still bland. I thought Chris would have done better.

[04monteintimidator]

um... im not impressed... looks like someone tacked a 1st gen rear onto a current sts... and did a bad job of it at that... look at the little "fin" thingy... the line that crosses from decklid onto part of the C pillar... it doesnt line up with the beltline... and looks like crap... the weird vent thing is... out of place... the fascia is underwhelming when compared to the 60 minutes sneak preview...

no insult to the artist... the drawing itself is well done... but the design is just... far too bland for my taste as far as what i want to see in a new CTS

[!!!TED!!!]

no insult to the artist... the drawing itself is well done... but the design is just... far too bland for my taste as far as what i want to see in a new CTS

167010[/snapback]

Actually, that rendering is quite accurate.

[ToniCipriani]

The area near the C-pillar doesn't look right for some reason...

[sciguy_0504]

I like it so far but I am worried about the rear end styling. The rear 3/4 does not flow well at all and the swoopy rear door mocks the hard styling found on every other inch of car. I hope it has active headlights.

[Cory Wolfe]

Actually, that rendering is quite accurate. 

167065[/snapback]

Hah... I've seen what all there is to see as well and I still say Chris did a poor job.

Did I mention that it doesn't help that he left it clearly obvious he just fancied up an STS? Look inside the greenhouse. But I noticed that after I had already made the STS comment. Personally, I think he could have done a better job if he started from scratch and actually used his sketching ability rather than a half-assed chop.

[ChrisPauwels]

Hah... I've seen what all there is to see as well and I still say Chris did a poor job.

Did I mention that it doesn't help that he left it clearly obvious he just fancied up an STS? Look inside the greenhouse. But I noticed that after I had already made the STS comment. Personally, I think he could have done a better job if he started from scratch and actually used his sketching ability rather than a half-assed chop.

167124[/snapback]

I guess we'll see when the car comes out if it's accurate or not. :AH-HA_wink:

[Cadillacfan]

Chris, just ignore BV's childish remarks. He obviously forgot about your amazing Camaro concept drawing which was far more accurate then the other sketches and chops that were floating around before the actual concept came out not to mention the Cobalt drawing.

I, and many people on this site believe this to be very close to what we'll see even if we don't even know what it looks like because we trust you. Of course, I'm sure you already know that and that's why you keep posting.

Blackviper: You should show more respect toward Chris and not declare his excellent drawing to be "half-assed" because you don't like the way it looks. Look at his past work and give me an example of his chops being half-assed.

[Cory Wolfe]

Chris, just ignore BV's childish remarks.  He obviously forgot about your amazing Camaro concept drawing which was far more accurate then the other sketches and chops that were floating around before the actual concept came out not to mention the Cobalt drawing.

I, and many people on this site believe this to be very close to what we'll see even if we don't even know what it looks like because we trust you.  Of course, I'm sure you already know that and that's why you keep posting.

Blackviper: You should show more respect toward Chris and not declare his excellent drawing to be "half-assed" because you don't like the way it looks.  Look at his past work and give me an example of his chops being half-assed.

167175[/snapback]

First off, I respect Chris. I'm working with him on a project. He's a great artist and chopper. As you said, his Camaro concept and much of his other work was excellent. That's just it, though... they were great. Does that automatically mean all of it's going to be great? No. It doesn't quite work that way.

Second, I was only saying that I thought the design would have been presented better had he started from scratch, did all the sketching, then rendered it. You see... He only chopped a CTS (my bad on the STS part... the STS is just a blurry and stretched CTS, anyways).

Third, about the chop itself. He got alot of the details right, just not perfect in the execution of them (as in they don't appear as bold as what I've seen, which is about as much as what he's seen). I mean... you can look at it and it looks accurate. But something is just off. It looks a little bland and a little bloated. The face isn't as bold, the headlights are off (he admitted to me that he did his own thing with them), the stance looks higher than in the spy pics, and that decklid is more aggressive than it should be. Yeah, otherwise, he did in fact do a good job. The greenhouse (other than the unfinished interior) is pretty spot on. So yeah... perhaps half-assed wasn't the right way to word it.

Finally, what ever happened to respecting each other's opinions? I you should talk to yourself about "respect."

[Cadillacfan]

unfortunately, I don't talk to myself.

Also, why would he build the car from the ground up when the new CTS is based off the current one? The proportions are similar to the current model so I think going over it is the right way of doing it.

Edited July 16, 2006 by Cadillacfan

[pow]

Looks like a G6. Good thing the real CTS is a lot nicer.

[ToniCipriani]

Looks like a G6. Good thing the real CTS is a lot nicer.

167313[/snapback]

Or more precisely, BLS?

[Bimmer325]

I altered Chris' chop a bit to create what I think may be a little more accurate.

Chris, your chop was 9/10 of the way there in my opinion. I'll only post my version with your consent. It's no problem if you're not comfortable with that. Just let me know. Thanks.