2008 Cadillac CTS: Image Gallery

[The O.C.]

Maybe if the front of the MKR was toned down I could like it a little. Currently, I think the front is hideous though, specifically the grille. The rear is ok, reminds me of the mark VII

The front of the CTS rocks.....

My whole point was that from the A-pillar back, the MKR looks much more dramatic and bold.....CTS is slab-sided in comparison with nary a crease to continue the theme that the front so clearly evokes....from A-pillar to C-pillar, it looks way too Lexus-IS'ish for me...

[big blue]

Ah right I forgot that you meant the A-pillar back. Serves me right for reading the post and then replying hours later after work. I realize what you mean about the MKR being more agressive, low-slung even? Although I can see how it reminds you of the IS, well I haven't seen either the MKR or CTS in person and that makes all the difference so I'll just hold my full opinion until the Dallas auto show rolls around come March :AH-HA_wink:

Edited January 13, 2007 by big blue

[deftonesfan867]

Ah right I forgot that you meant the A-pillar back. Serves me right for reading the post and then replying hours later after work. I cansee what you mean about the MKR being more agressive, low-slung even? Although I can see how it reminds you of the IS, well I haven't seen either the MKR or CTS in person and that makes all the difference so I'll just hold my full opinion until the Dallas auto show rolls around come March :AH-HA_wink:

Hmmmm, perhaps I can meet up with ya and we can go together.

[big blue]

Hmmmm, perhaps I can meet up with ya and we can go together.

Hm doesn't sound like a bad idea. Any other DFWites out there that maybe want to meet up for the show? Granted its in March so who knows what will happen between then and now..

[enzl]

CTS may not be to everyone's taste, but it does have the presence that so many products lack (in any segment.)

Kudos to GM for pulling the trigger on a product that just looks 'right'.

[VenSeattle]

I do not think I would want to haul 4 grown men around in the 3-Series for very long, but I think the CTS would be fine to do the same thing. Maybe 3-Series owners don't intend to do this, but that's what reg's getting at: If you want to carry around full-grown people regularly, the 3-Series is not the car you're looking for; the CTS could handle the job, though.

Sit in both man......I have. In real-world comfort, there's not much between them. Don't let the 3's exterior size be the only thing you base your opinions on.....the new model is much roomier inside (especially in the back seat) than the old one....

You'll complain about the inhospitable and cramped rear quarters on the W-Body cars (Like LaCrosse) but you'll condone and argue in favor of driving 4 grown men (5'10"-6'2") around for an extended period of time in a BMW 3-Series? You are NUTS! I’ve been in a 3-Series. SEVERAL times… The back seat is a very uncomfortable place to be longer than 20 minutes (only good for car-pooling to lunch and back.) Outside of that, the back seat is only for children... teens at best.

[Cadillacfan]

Please explain what makes this:

So much more exciting than this:

Ugh.. No thank you. From that angle that lincoln concept has huge front and rear overhangs and please, with Lincolns current state, a vehicle like this is about 8-10 years away from fruition. Hell, it took two generations of the CTS for Cadillac to really get it right. Kudos for Ford for really trying so I doubt they'll try to make Lincoln a global brand and give it competitive vehicles to compete with the likes of BMW, Mercedes,Lexus, and eventually Cadillac. Why would they? They already have a global luxury car line that looks to be on the upswing especially with the Detroit autoshow.

[DetroitNut90]

CTS, you sexy thing, you.

What an excellent red and interior. The detailing is amazing. All my issues with the old CTS have been solved. But...new car, new issues. For starters, the major disappointment is the line coming off the rear end that just stops by the rear window. It looks dumb. And the placement of the window/door lock switches is awful. I hated it in my grandparents' Mark VIII, and I hate it here. Aside from that, though...there's not much else to fault.

[97regalGS]

Sit in both man......I have. In real-world comfort, there's not much between them. Don't let the 3's exterior size be the only thing you base your opinions on.....the new model is much roomier inside (especially in the back seat) than the old one....

You'll complain about the inhospitable and cramped rear quarters on the W-Body cars (Like LaCrosse) but you'll condone and argue in favor of driving 4 grown men (5'10"-6'2") around for an extended period of time in a BMW 3-Series? You are NUTS! I’ve been in a 3-Series. SEVERAL times… The back seat is a very uncomfortable place to be longer than 20 minutes (only good for car-pooling to lunch and back.) Outside of that, the back seat is only for children... teens at best.

thanks for trying to derail the conversation now that it's back on track.

having been here for so long, you think you'd know better.

[Cory Wolfe]

Staying on topic is boring. I like pie. Well, no... I don't. I lied. Oops.

Edited January 14, 2007 by blackviper8891

[Intrepidation]

Staying on topic is boring. I like pie. Well, no... I don't. I lied. Oops.

What the hell is wrong with you man?! Pie is awesome!

Ok here's a new topic. You can't find cake.

And by that I mean you cannot find a perfectly good cake, ready to eat, on the sidewalk.

Also keep in mind that according to a very...uh...something source, cake can be divided into 2 main categories: "Natural Cake and Manufactured Cake".

[!!!TED!!!]

I saw it in person today, and can confirm this car is awesome! Pictures soon, with nav screen up too.

[regfootball]

Sit in both man......I have. In real-world comfort, there's not much between them. Don't let the 3's exterior size be the only thing you base your opinions on.....the new model is much roomier inside (especially in the back seat) than the old one....

You'll complain about the inhospitable and cramped rear quarters on the W-Body cars (Like LaCrosse) but you'll condone and argue in favor of driving 4 grown men (5'10"-6'2") around for an extended period of time in a BMW 3-Series? You are NUTS! I’ve been in a 3-Series. SEVERAL times… The back seat is a very uncomfortable place to be longer than 20 minutes (only good for car-pooling to lunch and back.) Outside of that, the back seat is only for children... teens at best.

right.

[VenSeattle]

thanks for trying to derail the conversation now that it's back on track.

having been here for so long, you think you'd know better.

- Good job on that yourself. As if you can cast the first stone...

To tie it all in then... The CTS' rear seat is more suitable for adults than the BMW 3-Series.

Happy?

[Croc]

I saw it in person today, and can confirm this car is awesome! Pictures soon, with nav screen up too.

Did Kris try to destroy the interior?

[deftonesfan867]

Did Kris try to destroy the interior?

If he didn't then I will :AH-HA_wink:

[BigPontiac]

- Good job on that yourself. As if you can cast the first stone...

To tie it all in then... The CTS' rear seat is more suitable for adults than the BMW 3-Series.

Happy?

And that would be why? Oh that's right, because dimensionally the CTS is the SIZE of a 5-Series!

[pow]

And that would be why? Oh that's right, because dimensionally the CTS is the SIZE of a 5-Series!

And the back of the 5 is much, much more comfortable/spacious-feeling than the back of the CTS, over even the STS. That's probably why the STS-V offers a sunroof delete option... there isn't enough headroom.

[Northstar]

And that would be why? Oh that's right, because dimensionally the CTS is the SIZE of a 5-Series!

Umm, the whole reason this is being discussed is because it is the opinion of some than the 3-Series is just as suitable for adults in the back seat as the CTS, and I think most of us would agree that is not the case.

[BigPontiac]

Umm, the whole reason this is being discussed is because it is the opinion of some than the 3-Series is just as suitable for adults in the back seat as the CTS, and I think most of us would agree that is not the case.

This is the same debate that always happens when the CTS and 3-Series come up. Lots of opinions being presented as facts...and little grounding in WHICH generation of 3-Series is being compared to which generation of CTS. The 1999-2005 3-Series sedan was a smaller car than the 2006+ 3-Series sedan. So, which "3-Series" has been spotted without people in the rear seat? Were the drivers directly questioned as to why they weren't carrying passengers? What was the sample size of the survey? Survey method? Margin of error? Are we talking about the North American Market? European Market? Worldwide?

My opinion, as someone who cross shopped the 2005 CTS against the 2005 3-Series, was that the 3-Series was a better car...and I voted by spending my hard earned US dollars and purchasing one. The CTS being bigger was actually a negative to me as a buyer as I don't have a huge use for the back seat and I preferred the package size of the 3-Series. The crummy resale value, pump to set emergency brake and fuel economy didn't help the CTS with me either. Will my preferences be the same as everyone else's? Probably not, but at least I've driven both cars and spent real money on purchasing one of them. I'd rather have Cadillac offer 3/4 scale RWD CTS as the BLS in the North American market...that to me would be a true 3-Series competitor.

I also see lots of "must have AWD option" thrown around with no mention of the tires. I've driven a RWD BMW through New England winters with traction control, a manual transmission and a set of 4 Blizzak winter tires with no problems.

Edited January 14, 2007 by BigPontiac

[BigPontiac]

Ahhhh $h!.....

I didn't notice that.....the damn car still has a foot-operated parking brake? Cadillac, get your HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.....!

You know that's the ONE thing about my interior that drives me to rage.....I hate the foot-operated parking brake. Not only does it feel and look "unsporty", I'm CONSTANTLY popping the hood the two levers are SO close together.......plus when you are pulling into a parking space, in a rush, it's cumbersome to apply it quickly so you can shut off the car and jump out.....

Think about it this way and think about having a clutch to deal with.....you are pulling into a parking space....well, you HAVE to put the car in neutral or shut off the engine FIRST......then take your foot OFF the clutch pedal.....then you apply the foot-operated parking brake. With a console lever, you can pull into the parking space and IMMEDIATELY apply the parking brake by pulling up the handle with your right hand WITHOUT having to shut off the car, or put the shifter into neutral, or pull your foot off the clutch pedal.

A console handle that you can simply grab and pull up is much more ergonomic, simpler to use, and nicer to bat....

Maybe it's not THAT big of a deal in an auto-equipped car because you seldom ever use the parking brake.....but I think if you are going to be serious enough to offer a manual transmission in your "sport sedan", that's an important thing that shouldn't have been overlooked....it's the difference between being a "posseur" or being a serious intender in the sport-sedan segment.

So, I wonder if Cadillac could surprise us? I just noticed that the 2007 G35 has the foot pedal emergency brake with the automatic, but has console mounted emergency brake lever for the manual transmission model. While that seems pretty rare, could Cadillac be adopting a similar strategy? In theory the pictures I saw of the new CTS interior with the manual trans at Automobilemag.com could just be a photoshopped image (GM did it with the G6 last year...) Guess we'll have to wait to see a real car to know for sure...

[regfootball]

it was all rooted in the notion that cadillacs are most often better values than bimmers

[BigPontiac]

it was all rooted in the notion that cadillacs are most often better values than bimmers

Which may be true for some buyers, but may not be for others. The current gen CTS is certainly "more car" for the money from a size perspective vs. the 3-Series...it's the size of a 5-Series. So if the buyer's priority is having a bigger car, then CTS may be the better value for that buyer. However, for those buyers who don't place a premium on that added size, it may not appear to be a better value. I have a friend with a 2004 CTS 2.8 w/manual who fits that bill...he likes the extra size the car affords over his old 2001 Audi A4 Quattro. But, when he drove my BMW against his CTS he said my car was more fun to drive...but it's too small to meet his needs. He made his choice by voting with his wallet for the Cadillac. (drives it in the winter on Blizzaks)

The flip side of the value equation is the resale value and warranty. My friend's CTS is on SmartLease, so he's not concerned about the resale. I bought my BMW, so the resale matters more to me...and the KBB research I did on both cars before buying showed the CTS resale dropping like a rock (hopefully this has been improving). Also, the BMW 4/50 warranty covers all maintenance...including wear & tear items like clutches and brake rotors. That to me added value to the BMW since I didn't need the size. Hence, I voted with my wallet.

It all comes down to buying what meets your needs and wants. Some may feel the need to "supersize it"...I did not.

[Robert Hall]

Looking at the various pics, this car has a lot of interesting surface development..I like the beveling below the side windows that extends into the quarter panel and up to the front fender vent, and all the various angles to the front fascia..

Unfortunately, I also realized how much an NA style license plate is going to ruin the front end appearance...

Edited January 15, 2007 by moltar

[ToniCipriani]

Just for comparison sake: Which one is better? SLS or CTS?

[VenSeattle]

Variance... Not necessarily which one is better, but I actually prefer the SLS. It's not as dramatic as the CTS, but it's more formal... and at the moment, I'd prefer to stare at the SLS's Steering wheel on a daily basis. I do like the CTS's window switch placement over the STS/SLS.

BigPontiac... The argument wasn't about preference, at least not as far as I was concerned. It was based upon which car could more appropriately accommodate adult-sized rear seat passengers. The CTS does. How that ability rates as a buyer's priority wasn't the issue. Whether or not you took that into consideration when buying your BMW wasn't the issue either. Where you found it as a negative, someone out there finds it as an advantage. The CTS just has more space in the back seat. I don't know who stated the obvious, but yes, the reason is plain and simple: The CTS is just a larger car.

[Northstar]

The CTS looks better, but the SLS is not bad. An SLS without NAV would not look too good though (I think), but the CTS will look the same most of the time.

[ZL-1]

Just for comparison sake: Which one is better? SLS or CTS?

CTS. The SLS appears to be based on the current STS basic layout, while the CTS looks like designed from scratch. The SLS still looks light years ahead if the STS though.

[Northstar]

Here's a pick of the rear seat (finally):

Looks spacious and at least if you're not sitting in the middle, it looks like it will hold you in place pretty well.

[BigPontiac]

BigPontiac... The argument wasn't about preference, at least not as far as I was concerned. It was based upon which car could more appropriately accommodate adult-sized rear seat passengers. The CTS does. How that ability rates as a buyer's priority wasn't the issue. Whether or not you took that into consideration when buying your BMW wasn't the issue either. Where you found it as a negative, someone out there finds it as an advantage. The CTS just has more space in the back seat. I don't know who stated the obvious, but yes, the reason is plain and simple: The CTS is just a larger car.

So moving from the generics to the specifics:

2007 BMW 328i vs. 2007 Cadillac CTS 2.8

Exterior: 3 Series vs. CTS

Length: 178.2 in. vs. 190.1 in.

Width: 71.5 in. vs. 70.6 in.

Height: 55.9 in. vs. 56.7 in.

Weight: 3340 lbs. vs. 3509 lbs.

Wheel Base: 108.7 in. vs. 113.4 in.

Interior: 3 Series vs. CTS

Front Headroom: 38.5 in. vs. 38.9 in. [bMW has sunroof std, CTS does not]

Rear Headroom: 37.5 in. vs. 36.9 in. [bMW has sunroof std, CTS does not]

Front Shoulder Room: 55.4 in. vs. 56.6 in.

Rear Shoulder Room: 55.1 in. vs. 56.2 in.

Front Leg Room: 41.5 in. vs. 42.4 in.

Rear Leg Room: 34.6 in. vs. 36.2 in.

Maximum Luggage Capacity: 12 cu.ft. vs. 12.5 cu.ft.

* Source Edmunds.com

So I'll take it when you say adult sized, you mean the CTS has 1.6in. of additional rear legroom and 1.1in. of additional rear shoulder room? But I'm sure that leg room comes in handy to slump down and compensate for the CTS's .6in less rear headroom (more like 1.6 if the CTS has a sunroof). Those advantages are quite sad considering the CTS is 11.9in longer in length than the 3 Series and 4.7in longer in wheelbase. Not exactly a commanding advantage or marvel of packaging efficiency...

[The O.C.]

Sit in both man......I have. In real-world comfort, there's not much between them. Don't let the 3's exterior size be the only thing you base your opinions on.....the new model is much roomier inside (especially in the back seat) than the old one....

You'll complain about the inhospitable and cramped rear quarters on the W-Body cars (Like LaCrosse) but you'll condone and argue in favor of driving 4 grown men (5'10"-6'2") around for an extended period of time in a BMW 3-Series? You are NUTS! I’ve been in a 3-Series. SEVERAL times… The back seat is a very uncomfortable place to be longer than 20 minutes (only good for car-pooling to lunch and back.) Outside of that, the back seat is only for children... teens at best.

OMG......and just HOW much of a LARGER and LONGER car is a W-body compared to a 3-series?

The 3-series back seat is WAY more hospitable for the relative size of car it is than a W-body's rear seat is for a car as big as a W-body....

[The O.C.]

Umm, the whole reason this is being discussed is because it is the opinion of some than the 3-Series is just as suitable for adults in the back seat as the CTS, and I think most of us would agree that is not the case.

Not actually.....

I began this whole "argument" because Reg said that "...people don't want a small, useless car like the 3-series" which is kindof an (sorry Reg) ignorant statement to make.....when you see how many of them BMW sells.....

My whole argument was that the current 3-series, while a bit smaller dimensionally than a CTS, IS pretty much as comfortable in the back seat (okay for two occupants....I'll give you that) as the larger CTS......and that wasn't always the case with the previous-gen 3-er.....but the new one is much better.

There.....debate over.

[The O.C.]

So moving from the generics to the specifics:

2007 BMW 328i vs. 2007 Cadillac CTS 2.8

Exterior: 3 Series vs. CTS

Length: 178.2 in. vs. 190.1 in.

Width: 71.5 in. vs. 70.6 in.

Height: 55.9 in. vs. 56.7 in.

Weight: 3340 lbs. vs. 3509 lbs.

Wheel Base: 108.7 in. vs. 113.4 in.

Interior: 3 Series vs. CTS

Front Headroom: 38.5 in. vs. 38.9 in. [bMW has sunroof std, CTS does not]

Rear Headroom: 37.5 in. vs. 36.9 in. [bMW has sunroof std, CTS does not]

Front Shoulder Room: 55.4 in. vs. 56.6 in.

Rear Shoulder Room: 55.1 in. vs. 56.2 in.

Front Leg Room: 41.5 in. vs. 42.4 in.

Rear Leg Room: 34.6 in. vs. 36.2 in.

Maximum Luggage Capacity: 12 cu.ft. vs. 12.5 cu.ft.

* Source Edmunds.com

So I'll take it when you say adult sized, you mean the CTS has 1.6in. of additional rear legroom and 1.1in. of additional rear shoulder room? But I'm sure that leg room comes in handy to slump down and compensate for the CTS's .6in less rear headroom (more like 1.6 if the CTS has a sunroof). Those advantages are quite sad considering the CTS is 11.9in longer in length than the 3 Series and 4.7in longer in wheelbase. Not exactly a commanding advantage or marvel of packaging efficiency...

My WHOLE point! Thanks for a wonderful explanation!

Let's just call them both good.....the CTS roomy, and the 3-series amazingly comfortable considering it's smaller size.....and move on...!

[VenSeattle]

OMG......and just HOW much of a LARGER and LONGER car is a W-body compared to a 3-series?

The 3-series back seat is WAY more hospitable for the relative size of car it is than a W-body's rear seat is for a car as big as a W-body....

The debate wasn't on packaging efficiency... we were comparing the literal space available for full-size adults. Regardless of how much space you think should be available, the amount of space needed for the average full-sized adult isn't relative.

[VenSeattle]

So I'll take it when you say adult sized, you mean the CTS has 1.6in. of additional rear legroom and 1.1in. of additional rear shoulder room? But I'm sure that leg room comes in handy to slump down and compensate for the CTS's .6in less rear headroom (more like 1.6 if the CTS has a sunroof). Those advantages are quite sad considering the CTS is 11.9in longer in length than the 3 Series and 4.7in longer in wheelbase. Not exactly a commanding advantage or marvel of packaging efficiency...

First, thank you for showing there is more rear passenger space in the CTS than the BMW 3-Series.

Second, please see above. this wasn't a debate on packaging efficiency.

Third, the importance of an inch should really be pawned off on The O.C. since the difference between the interior dimensions on a 2005 Camry and a 2005 LaCrosse are even closer than the CTS & 3-Series... In most cases, we're talking fractions of an inch. However, he'll completely vow how important a half an inch is which makes the W-Platform's rear seat completely unsuitable for adults.

yet... for some reason... the 3-series backseat is perfectly acceptable for adults on long trips.

[BigPontiac]

First, thank you for proving there is more rear passenger space in the CTS than the BMW 3-Series.

Second, please see above… this wasn’t a debate on packaging efficiency.

Third, the importance of an inch should really be pawned off on The O.C. since the difference between the interior dimensions on a 2005 Camry and a 2005 LaCrosse are even closer than the CTS & 3-Series... In most cases, we're talking fractions of an inch. However, he'll completely vow how important a half an inch is which makes the W-Platform's rear seat completely unsuitable for adults.

yet... for some reason... the 3-series backseat is perfectly acceptable for adults on long trips.

It's the same debate that always seems to occur on this board, bigger is assumed to be better when it comes to the CTS...the supersize it American mentality. Whenever someone tries to defend the CTS on merit against other competitors in it's class, all anyone ever comes up with is "it's bigger" for comparable money.

The numbers prove that the CTS has more rear seat legroom, yet has less rear headroom. So, as long as your adults are short in stature, then they should enjoy the back of the CTS. Of course, then they wouldn't need the leg room anyway so there would be no advantage in needing such a large car and heavy car.

So, taking us back to buyer choice...some may prefer the bigger CTS, but the North American market appears to prefer the smaller 3 Series based upon sales volume.

[Croc]

On the interior comparison shots: I think they are both equally excellent. That said, the SLS looks more expensive than the CTS...but shouldn't it? The SLS fixes the vast majority of flaws with the STS interior that I wish it were offered on this continent.

[VenSeattle]

It's the same debate that always seems to occur on this board, bigger is assumed to be better when it comes to the CTS...the supersize it American mentality. Whenever someone tries to defend the CTS on merit against other competitors in it's class, all anyone ever comes up with is "it's bigger" for comparable money.

The numbers prove that the CTS has more rear seat legroom, yet has less rear headroom. So, as long as your adults are short in stature, then they should enjoy the back of the CTS. Of course, then they wouldn't need the leg room anyway so there would be no advantage in needing such a large car and heavy car.

So, taking us back to buyer choice...some may prefer the bigger CTS, but the North American market appears to prefer the smaller 3 Series based upon sales volume.

All that is perfectly fine. Some prefer bigger and some don't. That's preference. Neither are wrong. The market is large enough to cater to both in this price range. Cadillac will be coming out with its smaller alternative soon enough (BLS successor.)

As for sales volume, a lot of that has to do with how many body styles each vehicle has available. The CTS only offers a sedan. The 3-Series comes in sedan, coupe, convertible, and wagon. Not to mention, the 3-Series has AWD available, which just became available on the 2008 CTS. All things considered, the CTS sedan was a raving success (even with its cheap interior... how it performed was actually its greatest asset and showed in comparison tests against its direct competitors. So it wasn't entirely about dimensions.)

[97regalGS]

On the interior comparison shots: I think they are both equally excellent. That said, the SLS looks more expensive than the CTS...but shouldn't it? The SLS fixes the vast majority of flaws with the STS interior that I wish it were offered on this continent.

quite frankly, the only think that can save STS sales in 2008 is to bring over the SLS(longer wheelbase, new interior) until a new model rolls out.

I mean really, who is gonna get a 2008 STS with 320hp NS when they can get a 2008 CTS with 300hp, with a nicer interior for less money?

[Croc]

quite frankly, the only think that can save STS sales in 2008 is to bring over the SLS(longer wheelbase, new interior) until a new model rolls out.

I mean really, who is gonna get a 2008 STS with 320hp NS when they can get a 2008 CTS with 300hp, with a nicer interior for less money?

I agree.

[BigPontiac]

All that is perfectly fine. Some prefer bigger and some don't. That's preference. Neither are wrong. The market is large enough to cater to both in this price range. Cadillac will be coming out with its smaller alternative soon enough (BLS successor.)

I believe I've mentioned buyer choice being the deciding factor several times now.

As for sales volume, a lot of that has to do with how many body styles each vehicle has available. The CTS only offers a sedan. The 3-Series comes in sedan, coupe, convertible, and wagon. Not to mention, the 3-Series has AWD available, which just became available on the 2008 CTS. All things considered, the CTS sedan was a raving success (even with its cheap interior... how it performed was actually its greatest asset and showed in comparison tests against its direct competitors. So it wasn't entirely about dimensions.)

As for sales volume, since using numbers worked so well to clarify the dimensional differences between the cars, lets try the same approach with sales volumes. Using the numbers posted on C&G for Nov sales we get the following:

CTS

Jan-Nov 2006: 50,024

Jan-Nov 2005: 53,959

source

3-Series (RWD sedan only)

Jan-Nov 2006: 58,387

Jan-Nov 2005: 63,210

3-Series (AWD sedan)

Jan-Nov 2006: 21,551

Jan-Nov 2005: 9,934

source

The sales numbers do not appear to support your assertion that the BMW sells in higher volumes due to more available body styles. Eliminating the additional body styles as well as the AWD sedan model still shows the 3-Series selling in higher volumes than the CTS.

As for the CTS's performance against its direct competitors being an asset, the most recent comparison test I remember seeing showed it placing in 6th place out of 8 cars.

8th: 2005 Saab 9-3 Aero

7th: 2005 Volvo S60R AWD

6th: 2005 Cadillac CTS 3.6 Sport

5th: 2005 Audi A4 3.2 Quattro

4th: 2005 Acura TL

3rd: 2005 Infiniti G35

2nd: 2006 Lexus IS350

1st: 2006 BMW 330i

C&D 35K Sport Sedan Comparison

Every CTS we drive is better than the previous one, which makes us already impatient for this car's replacement.

[pow]

Didn't notice this thread... so this reply might be a bit late, but FWIW, I find the backseat of the 3 more accomodating/comfortable than the backseat of the CTS. It might have to do with less intrusive footwells, etc, and I notice a lack of headroom more than a lack of legroom.

[Northstar]

I believe I've mentioned buyer choice being the deciding factor several times now.

As for sales volume, since using numbers worked so well to clarify the dimensional differences between the cars, lets try the same approach with sales volumes. Using the numbers posted on C&G for Nov sales we get the following:

CTS

Jan-Nov 2006: 50,024

Jan-Nov 2005: 53,959

source

3-Series (RWD sedan only)

Jan-Nov 2006: 58,387

Jan-Nov 2005: 63,210

3-Series (AWD sedan)

Jan-Nov 2006: 21,551

Jan-Nov 2005: 9,934

source

The sales numbers do not appear to support your assertion that the BMW sells in higher volumes due to more available body styles. Eliminating the additional body styles as well as the AWD sedan model still shows the 3-Series selling in higher volumes than the CTS.

That's not that impressive for the BMW... it's the CTS's fifth year on the market, and the BMW has been on the market for what, 15 months or so? Yes, the BMW outsells it by a large margin when you add the AWD sales, but there are lots of people who won't consider a vehicle if it doesn't have AWD.

As for the CTS's performance against its direct competitors being an asset, the most recent comparison test I remember seeing showed it placing in 6th place out of 8 cars.

8th: 2005 Saab 9-3 Aero

7th: 2005 Volvo S60R AWD

6th: 2005 Cadillac CTS 3.6 Sport

5th: 2005 Audi A4 3.2 Quattro

4th: 2005 Acura TL

3rd: 2005 Infiniti G35

2nd: 2006 Lexus IS350

1st: 2006 BMW 330i

C&D 35K Sport Sedan Comparison

Every CTS we drive is better than the previous one, which makes us already impatient for this car's replacement.

I believe all of the cars that finished ahead of it are newer (except maybe the TL), and look at the highs and lows. Highs: Distinctive machete-hewn styling, "GM" and "handling" are an oxymoron no longer, solid torque, lustrous paint. Lows: Exhaust drone, blurry controls, dime-store dash a generation behind the competition.

The exhaust in the video someone posted sounded great, the controls are much improved, and quite clearly the new interior is at least tied for best-in-class.

I would like to see a points breakdown, but it appears there isn't one. Where would the old CTS have placed if it simply had the new CTS's interior? What if it had the 300+HP? How about the (most likely) improved handling? How about the new car's looks? All of these things would make a huge difference, and I'm pretty sure the only vehicle in the test that has been significantly updated is the G35, and it's upgrades were not as drastic.

[BigPontiac]

That's not that impressive for the BMW... it's the CTS's fifth year on the market, and the BMW has been on the market for what, 15 months or so? Yes, the BMW outsells it by a large margin when you add the AWD sales, but there are lots of people who won't consider a vehicle if it doesn't have AWD.

2006 was the first year for the revised 3-Series body style. 2005 was the last year for the previous generation body style that originated in 1999. It outsells it with or without including the AWD model.

I believe all of the cars that finished ahead of it are newer (except maybe the TL), and look at the highs and lows. Highs: Distinctive machete-hewn styling, "GM" and "handling" are an oxymoron no longer, solid torque, lustrous paint. Lows: Exhaust drone, blurry controls, dime-store dash a generation behind the competition.

The exhaust in the video someone posted sounded great, the controls are much improved, and quite clearly the new interior is at least tied for best-in-class.

I would like to see a points breakdown, but it appears there isn't one. Where would the old CTS have placed if it simply had the new CTS's interior? What if it had the 300+HP? How about the (most likely) improved handling? How about the new car's looks? All of these things would make a huge difference, and I'm pretty sure the only vehicle in the test that has been significantly updated is the G35, and it's upgrades were not as drastic.

Most of them are newer. I posted the link in response to the statement "how it performed was actually its greatest asset and showed in comparison tests against its direct competitors. So it wasn't entirely about dimensions." If you got an article that proves that statement, feel free to post it. Otherwise, it's yet another opinion that can't be substantiated. I'm very tired of reading all the generalities presented as gospel.

I'm sure the 2008 CTS will stack up much better against it's competitors....and all the major magazines will do more comparison tests. My two concerns center around the lack of availability of the DI V6 on the manual transmission model and that e-brake placement.

[Intrepidation]

Too bad I can't change my vote...after seeing better pictures and getting used to the car, I love it.

[Northstar]

2006 was the first year for the revised 3-Series body style. 2005 was the last year for the previous generation body style that originated in 1999. It outsells it with or without including the AWD model.

That's basically what I said, is it not? I was saying that a vehicle that's been on the market for 15 months should outsell one that's been out for 4+ years, especially when the newer vehicle is considered to be built by the best-in-class brand.

Most of them are newer. I posted the link in response to the statement "how it performed was actually its greatest asset and showed in comparison tests against its direct competitors. So it wasn't entirely about dimensions." If you got an article that proves that statement, feel free to post it. Otherwise, it's yet another opinion that can't be substantiated. I'm very tired of reading all the generalities presented as gospel.

I think the article you posted proves that statement. They didn't care for the interior, it didn't have many features compared to the others, yet it performed well enough to beat two of the other cars.

Also I'm confused on your "most of them are newer" statement. Are you saying most of the cars tested are newer than the old CTS or that most of them have been updated since the test? Because I'm pretty sure the G35 is the only one that has received anything but minor updates.

I'm sure the 2008 CTS will stack up much better against it's competitors....and all the major magazines will do more comparison tests. My two concerns center around the lack of availability of the DI V6 on the manual transmission model and that e-brake placement.

GM's press release says that the DI V6 is available with the manual, yet the rep at the show said it's not, so we'll have to wait and see. The e-brake is an issue.

[97regalGS]

GM's press release says that the DI V6 is available with the manual, yet the rep at the show said it's not, so we'll have to wait and see. The e-brake is an issue.

i'm thinking the press release is a little more believeable than the guy GM hired for his presentation skills to work the floor.

e-brake is an issue.

the only other thing wrong with this car is that damn GM badge on the side. yuck. LaNeve needs to give his head a shake

[BigPontiac]

That's basically what I said, is it not? I was saying that a vehicle that's been on the market for 15 months should outsell one that's been out for 4+ years, especially when the newer vehicle is considered to be built by the best-in-class brand.

You said:

That's not that impressive for the BMW... it's the CTS's fifth year on the market, and the BMW has been on the market for what, 15 months or so?

In 2005, the 4/5 year old CTS was competing against a 7 year old BMW.

I think the article you posted proves that statement. They didn't care for the interior, it didn't have many features compared to the others, yet it performed well enough to beat two of the other cars.

6th out of 8 to me is not really competitive. That's not even mid-pack.

Also I'm confused on your "most of them are newer" statement. Are you saying most of the cars tested are newer than the old CTS or that most of them have been updated since the test? Because I'm pretty sure the G35 is the only one that has received anything but minor updates.

I'm saying most of the models that beat the CTS were newer designs that debuted after the CTS. However, to be fair, the CTS they tested had the Sport package and 3.6 (instead of the 3.2)...so at least they tested the "best" model Cadillac had to offer (instead of pitting a 2.8 against a 330i for example, then calling the CTS slow...).

My dad has both a 2006 TL M6 and a 2006 G35x. Personally, I find the TL to be highly overrated. Nice interior materials and nav, but the driving experience is very "eh". The G's not bad...the new 2007 however may shape up to be a very formidable opponent in this class (I only got to sit in one, not drive it...so my opinion may change after a test drive).

[BigPontiac]

the only other thing wrong with this car is that damn GM badge on the side. yuck. LaNeve needs to give his head a shake

I just scrolled back to see the badge...it's not on the car in the PR shots! Just the autoshow pics. That's an easy fix, use some dental floss and they'll come right off without leaving a mark. Wax. Done. Viola! You're badge-less...

[regfootball]

Not actually.....

I began this whole "argument" because Reg said that "...people don't want a small, useless car like the 3-series" which is kindof an (sorry Reg) ignorant statement to make.....when you see how many of them BMW sells.....

My whole argument was that the current 3-series, while a bit smaller dimensionally than a CTS, IS pretty much as comfortable in the back seat (okay for two occupants....I'll give you that) as the larger CTS......and that wasn't always the case with the previous-gen 3-er.....but the new one is much better.

There.....debate over.

sorry, its not.

we all know the 3 series sells well because it is the poster child for status seekers. cadillac and the CTS has sold based on merit. the 3 series proves its worth merit, but i'd lay MONEY down that 50% + of 3 series buyers are buying for status / fashion reasons. In a lot of places, all the 3 series is is a nicer chick car.

c'mon we all know that many Bimmers are sold just like Lexus is.....to status seeking wealthies who need to drive the 'in' car.

I like the 3 series but admit, I'm really damn tired of the melted butter BMW look. And the flame surfacing crap is so tired. And all their interiors seem so crappy and dismal lately. i sat in a 6 series at the auto show last year and it was crap IMHO. Mercedes outclasses BMW interiors by many miles. The 7 series interior is atrociously laid out. BMW's door panels these days are garbage.

That's why this new CTS is so refreshing. its stylish. the current 3 series interior is quite econocar in comparison.

Personally, I'm not sure how the Honda TL can sell anymore with the new CTS, G35, revised 335i, IS, etc.

Edited January 18, 2007 by regfootball