2008 Cadillac CTS: Image Gallery

[Cory Wolfe]

That is what I've been waiting to see. It looks great. I also see that what Sciguy was questioning is, indeed, tiny display screens for the driver and passenger's climate controls. Very cool.

[sciguy_0504]

I also see that what Sciguy was questioning is, indeed, tiny display screens for the driver and passenger's climate controls. Very cool.

Indeed, they do not look so bad and out of place now that they are on.

[Z-06]

Navigation Screen looks cool. Totally different from the other popups.

[Northstar]

Wow, the NAV screen looks very cool. I like how it is more or less just an extension of the center stack, unlike other models (such as in some Volvos), and also how is is placed at the perfect height - directly in like with the guages.

[Northstar]

Your comments about the 3 are nothing more than generalizations and are hardly based on factual information about 3-series owners or intenders.

And frankly, seat-track to seat-track.....a 3-series is far more generous in room than a CTS....in the driver's seat. My ex (6'0 but long legs) could get the seat in my 330Ci convertible so far back, he couldn't reach the pedals. In my CTS, his bent knees almost touch the lower dash....WITH the seat all the way back on it's tracks.

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.

[NOS2006]

The upper instrument panel and door trim surfaces are hand-cut, sewn and wrapped by craftsmen; this cut-and-sew execution gives CTS a tailored feel. The good news for all Cadillac owners is it is now so well received that it is Cadillac’s future design edict.

They did their research! (and, no, it's not made in Taiwan)

Glad you guys like the pop-up nav. I loved it, too.

[Z-06]

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.

I have not seen one 3-series as a matter of fact any entry level luxury sedan carrying 4 people on the road. Most I have seen is 3 people, two in front and one in the back. Entry levels in my opinion are not family haulers, just like a generalization they are mostly for single and couples with entry level luxo money.

[regfootball]

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.

YES, EXACTLY.

[regfootball]

I have not seen one 3-series as a matter of fact any entry level luxury sedan carrying 4 people on the road. Most I have seen is 3 people, two in front and one in the back. Entry levels in my opinion are not family haulers, just like a generalization they are mostly for single and couples with entry level luxo money.

I maybe have seen more than 2 people in a 3 series maybe once in the last year.

I've seen plenty of CTS with folks in the back. At auto shows I get in the back when others are in the front. The rear of the CTS is a nice place to be. I do commend BMW for making a good front seat perch in their 3's but I've never been able to wedge into the back of the 3 series and be comfortable. Plus the CTS has more usable elbow room for all passengers.

[regfootball]

Your comments about the 3 are nothing more than generalizations and are hardly based on factual information about 3-series owners or intenders.

its based on who I see driving them on the roads, and those shopping in the BMW dealers when I go there.

I forgot to add another stereotypical group. The style seeking Asians who finally were able to ditch the Prelude coupe and get something upscale.

Conversely, the set that drives the 5 series seem to be quite different.

[jbartley]

that nav screen looks AWESOME!

I'm glad GM took a hint from the G35. there when you need it, hidden when you don't!

are there pics ANYWHERE of the reat seats? i'm curious what they look like.

[pow]

its based on who I see driving them on the roads, and those shopping in the BMW dealers when I go there.

I forgot to add another stereotypical group. The style seeking Asians who finally were able to ditch the Prelude coupe and get something upscale.

Conversely, the set that drives the 5 series seem to be quite different.

How can you tell someone is ego- or image-conscious just by glancing into...

Oh, wait, this is reg posting.

[pow]

I maybe have seen more than 2 people in a 3 series maybe once in the last year.

I've seen plenty of CTS with folks in the back. At auto shows I get in the back when others are in the front. The rear of the CTS is a nice place to be. I do commend BMW for making a good front seat perch in their 3's but I've never been able to wedge into the back of the 3 series and be comfortable. Plus the CTS has more usable elbow room for all passengers.

FWIW, I'm more comfortable in the back of the current 3-series than the CTS, primarily because of headroom. Have to slouch/tilt my head forward in the CTS; don't have to in the 3er. I'm average height (5'11"), not obese.

[evok]

How can you tell someone is ego- or image-conscious just by glancing into...

He is the Ms. Cleo of CG.

[regfootball]

He is the Ms. Cleo of CG.

I am ok with that.

[Camino LS6]

You know, I may not like the CTS too much but it is only an issue of personal preference. I really can't say that anything is "wrong" with it - it just isn't my "style". That is likely a good thing as this is a market I don't have a great deal of interest in generally. Add to that the stunning review that Evok has given this car and I'm convinced that Cadillac hit the mark exactly as they should have. If I had loved the car, I suspect that the CTS would have been slightly off-target. I hold out the hope that the new CTS V will hit me as well or better than the original did. Should that happen, I will be completely convinced that they got it right.

[Cadillacfan]

The interior looks even better with the nav screen up and the power on. Looks really sharp. I can't wait for Top Gear to test it. I'll laugh at Jeremy Clarkson as he finds the smallest problems with the vehicle and then bashes the hell out of it simply because it's American.

[pow]

The interior looks even better with the nav screen up and the power on. Looks really sharp. I can't wait for Top Gear to test it. I'll laugh at Jeremy Clarkson as he finds the smallest problems with the vehicle and then bashes the hell out of it simply because it's American.

No, I think he'll like it, and then say "the gearbox is Japanese, the tires are French, the body is Korean, its chairman is Swiss -- it's not American!" a la Ford GT.

[makfu]

Some of you may remember me from a few years back; I bought my CTS in April of 2002 (I haven't posted in a while, but have been lurking).

I am still driving my early production 2003 CTS (fully loaded except for the automatic) nearly five years later. After roughly 80,000 miles, I can honestly say I have enjoyed my CTS more than any car I have ever owned (which includes BMW's, Mini's, Honda's and an Aurora). I am still amazed at how utterly solid the chassis is after years of pounding NY City commutes. The 3.2 has also proven solid, if unremarkable and overall, I have to say that the build quality of my CTS is fantastic.

If I could have imagined what I wanted my next car to be, this is pretty much it. I bought the CTS, over a 2002 E39 BMW 525 because the CTS was cheaper but very similar in driving dynamics and, most importantly, looked like nothing else on the road. To me, the CTS looked like the Cadillac's of old - stacked headlights, strong character lines and a truly imposing road presence. The new CTS takes those cues to a different level.

When I look at this new car, it fixes all the things I don't like about my CTS; the wacky interior, some overly busy styling bits and barely average panel gaps. The attention to detail in the styling of the new CTS is pretty stunning. For example, look at the effort put into the front fender to A pillar seam, or the gentle but also aggressive wheel-well flare. Everything flows and fits beautifully on the exterior. The interior is also stunning in that it looks like a Cadillac without losing the techno-aggressive feel that makes a CTS something different than a 3 series or C-class Mercedes.

Most importantly the new CTS, once again, looks like absolutely nothing else on the road. It is still an Art & Science car and to my eyes is especially reminiscent of the very first Art & Science concept, the Evoq (look at them side by side, and you will see what I mean).

For the first time ever, I won’t be comparison shopping as I know exactly what my next car will be:an 08 CTS. Well done GM.

-Mak

03 CTS with 5 on the floor.

[C.H.U.D.]

About the only thing I miss from the old CTS is the way the front bumper creases come into two points under the grille.

Everything else kills it.

Edit: Nice to see you post again Makfu. (I started out as Carnage)

Edited January 11, 2007 by C.H.U.D.

[jlbunting]

Now that Nav is sweet looking.

[bowtie_dude]

pic with nav screen up...

The design of the center stack is mind-blowing.

[Robert Hall]

Your comments about the 3 are nothing more than generalizations and are hardly based on factual information about 3-series owners or intenders.

And frankly, seat-track to seat-track.....a 3-series is far more generous in room than a CTS....in the driver's seat. My ex (6'0 but long legs) could get the seat in my 330Ci convertible so far back, he couldn't reach the pedals. In my CTS, his bent knees almost touch the lower dash....WITH the seat all the way back on it's tracks.

I have a 6'3" coworker that drives a new 3-series 4dr.. I haven't tried riding in the back (I'm 6'0"), but my 5'7" coworkers fit in the back the just fine.. the 3-series is a great size, IMHO...not too small, not too big..

[Robert Hall]

That's an interesting comment for you to make......considering the sheer number of 3-series BMWs that the company DOES sell. I'd hardly call it a "small and useless" car. In fact, it has as much trunk room as my CTS.....and the rear seat is every bit as roomy as my car's......so just how DO you justify your classification of the 3-Series as "small and useless?"

reg's mindless blathering gets old... I see probably 15 3-series for every 1 CTS here in the Denver metro area..very popular car around here, and it's pretty much right in the 'middle of America' (a bit to the west of the geographic center)...the 3 series is pretty space-efficient, IMHO.

[Robert Hall]

I'm looking forward to seeing and studying the CTS in person... I want to see how the decklid is shaped up close--looks like it's higher on the sides and dips in the middle...interesting design.

[regfootball]

reg's mindless blathering gets old... I see probably 15 3-series for every 1 CTS here in the Denver metro area..very popular car around here, and it's pretty much right in the 'middle of America' (a bit to the west of the geographic center)...the 3 series is pretty space-efficient, IMHO.

Denver is hardly middle America. Denver is lefty town just like Seattle, just not as extreme.

Chicago, Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, great lakes, the plains that's heartland.

And because an overpriced car is 'popular' with the overpaid status seeking set (not all of em, just a lot of em) does not mean its a large car.

For the money you pay for BMW's you never get much in the way of space and room. No one can ever justify a purchase of a BMW on 'wow this car has assloads of room'. Back to my original point, with Cadillac, you always get a more commodious car for the $$$$$ than say, BMW.

Isn't the 3 series technically still a 'subcompact'?

BMW backers sure are automotively insecure these days. Been getting such good press for such a long time but the moment anyone puts in print what a lot of everyday folks already feel about BMW drivers (but never say) they get all 'you can't criticize BMW' on ya.

And i thought Honda and Toyota backers were the only ones who were insecure about their automotive superiority.

I sure as heck can and will. This CTS looks like a bigger more useful car with plenty of performance, more interesting looks and an inviting interior that is not drab and austere. Guess its hard for BMW folks to know that CTS, Inifiniti, Lexus, all sorts of cars are nipping are their glorified heels.

and no iCrash joystick on the center console.

Don't get me wrong, the 3 series a nice car, but honestly, its been getting punked more and more every year. This CTS has style all over the BMW. It makes the BMW look like an econocar.

Oh and I guess the Taurus is popular too. I see at least 15 of those a day.

Edited January 12, 2007 by regfootball

[turbo200]

For the money you pay for BMW's you never get much in the way of space and room. No one can ever justify a purchase of a BMW on 'wow this car has assloads of room'. Back to my original point, with Cadillac, you always get a more commodious car for the $$$$$ than say, BMW.

Let's just put it this way, your preference is not their preference. If BMW buyers' first priority was space, they'd buy a 500 like you did. Clearly, they see something in the cars you don't, or can't appreciate. Many BMWs are bought because of thier renowned driving dynamics and performance, others are bought simply because BMWs are viewed as sophisticated and for the well-heeled, others are bought because people simply love BMWs classic design philosophy. CTS is another view on the BMW philosophy, it's really simply a 5-series for less money, except with Caddy's classic design philosophy. Many people will buy the CTS, others may view Caddy as inferior or to not have as much cachet as BMW. Young wealthy girls, a big audience for BMW, may see a lot of merit in this CTS having ample space for thier friends [as long as the headroom issue has been fixed], for 3-series money; the same can be applied to most young affluent people/couples looking at the 3-series.

[Northstar]

I think everyone has stated their feelings about the CTS vs. 3er, let's move on to something else.

[corvette_dude729]

Anybody going to comment on the nav and the radio layout?

When I had commented that I wanted to see a pic of it, I didn't even realize that you worked on it!! They look amazing great job. What exactly where you involved with for them?

[NOS2006]

I think everyone has stated their feelings about the CTS vs. 3er, let's move on to something else.

I haven't!

I like the CTS.

Edited January 12, 2007 by NOS2006

[Robert Hall]

I haven't!

I like the CTS.

I like it too...and the 3-series.. I'd have to drive both before I could judge which I liked better...

can't wait to see the CTS upclose...it's interesting how it looks smaller than it is in the pics.

[frogger]

I think I like the 2008 CTS a lot more than the 3er (which I like too). Unfortunately I am unable to ascertain how good a person is based on what car they drive.

[The O.C.]

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....

[The O.C.]

Denver is hardly middle America. Denver is lefty town just like Seattle, just not as extreme.

Chicago, Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, great lakes, the plains that's heartland.

And because an overpriced car is 'popular' with the overpaid status seeking set (not all of em, just a lot of em) does not mean its a large car.

For the money you pay for BMW's you never get much in the way of space and room. No one can ever justify a purchase of a BMW on 'wow this car has assloads of room'. Back to my original point, with Cadillac, you always get a more commodious car for the $$$$$ than say, BMW.

Isn't the 3 series technically still a 'subcompact'?

BMW backers sure are automotively insecure these days. Been getting such good press for such a long time but the moment anyone puts in print what a lot of everyday folks already feel about BMW drivers (but never say) they get all 'you can't criticize BMW' on ya.

And i thought Honda and Toyota backers were the only ones who were insecure about their automotive superiority.

I sure as heck can and will. This CTS looks like a bigger more useful car with plenty of performance, more interesting looks and an inviting interior that is not drab and austere. Guess its hard for BMW folks to know that CTS, Inifiniti, Lexus, all sorts of cars are nipping are their glorified heels.

and no iCrash joystick on the center console.

Don't get me wrong, the 3 series a nice car, but honestly, its been getting punked more and more every year. This CTS has style all over the BMW. It makes the BMW look like an econocar.

Oh and I guess the Taurus is popular too. I see at least 15 of those a day.

Hmmmm.....coming from someone that has no experience with BMWs.

I've owned a few 3-series' in my time.....and I own a CTS now. So therefore, I have the PERSONAL EXPERIENCE to talk about both cars.

As much as I love my current CTS, I wish I would have waited for the new 335i (twin-turbo I6) coupe. And, yes....I think it WOULD have been worth the approximately $6,000 more in MSRP over my Cadillac.

If I was THAT ego-driven, I NEVER would have purchased a GM car in southern California in the first place. I would have simply gotten another 3-series.

I LIKE the 3-series because it's one of the best-driving, best-handling cars I've ever owned.....and it has one of the smoothest and silkiest 6-cylinder engines in the industry. AND, (shock, shock) I actually like the size of the 3-series. It's luxury/sport driving in a more compact package. The fit-and-finish and quality of materials also blows away anything from GM.....(although new CTS looks to be putting up a good fight in that arena.)

Your baseless opinions about, in your words, "alot of them (3-series drivers)" reeks of sheer ignorance on your part.

Reg, I like you and your posts.....but in this case, I think you are fighting a battle you can not rationally win.....

Edited January 12, 2007 by The O.C.

[The O.C.]

OK.....

I'm going to throw this WHOLE thread into an uproar.......

You know what would have made me happy about the new CTS?

The Lincoln MKR concept.....from the A-pillar back.....!

Take the MKR's horizontal taillights away and give the car tail-fin-type vertical taillights.....and that's the kind of aggression in body design I was hoping for from the new CTS.

[big blue]

More real life pics of the CTS

Found these posted on the CTS Edmunds board. That interior looks stunning in these images. I'm not sure if both interior pics are from the same car, but the white colored one stands out and gives it a special luxury look over the normal tan colored one. The wood trim in both interior shots are nice and rich looking and I'd definitely have to get the wood in these cars. It's tastefully done imo...

Just saw your post above mine O.C. Yeah this thread is going to be torn apart now Personally, I disagree and love the new CTS as it looks luxurious, Cadillac-like and still new and modern.

Edited January 12, 2007 by big blue

[Croc]

Hey The O.C.: If you click on the + Quote button at the bottom of each post you want to quote until they all turn red, then click the ADDREPLY button at the bottom of the page, you can create ONE post instead of 3 or 4.

Also, if you go back to all of your posts above, you can hit the EDIT button, choose FULL EDIT, copy all of the text and code and paste it in one of the other posts, again eliminating 3 or 4 posts in a row.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This CTS is simply gorgeous. It is truly a work of art.

[97regalGS]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This CTS is simply gorgeous. It is truly a work of art.

i completely agree!!

[AAS]

...

This CTS is simply gorgeous. It is truly a work of art.

i completely agree!!

Same here... At first I was worried that it lost alot of the edge, especially in the rear, as if it received a boring STS-like rear treatment. But, the more I study the exterior, the more I catch the same familiar edges and creases. It's just that have been slightly softened. Aside from the grill/front-end, the only design element that didn't carry over is the crease that starts from the front fender and runs to the rear. But, it's kind of been replaced by the one that starts behind the fender vents.

I'm really excited to see these out and about!

[turbo200]

OK.....

I'm going to throw this WHOLE thread into an uproar.......

You know what would have made me happy about the new CTS?

The Lincoln MKR concept.....from the A-pillar back.....!

Take the MKR's horizontal taillights away and give the car tail-fin-type vertical taillights.....and that's the kind of aggression in body design I was hoping for from the new CTS.

this is just going to reiterate what I've already said, but I completely agree about the MKR reference, there is a drop dead gorgeous sedan that doesn't spare the details and dramaticism anywhere, that car will make you stop take notice glare and never let up from front to side to rear. The CTS feels too much like I've already seen it, and it feels too much like the STS. Oh well, enough have commented agreeing with this sentiment, so it's clearly an issue that has truth to it. The red color has a lot to do with it, as I think the lighter colors, like silver, will do a better job at showing the creases and tension in the body enough for me to like it. I still won't have final judgement within me until I see it in person.

[Northstar]

OK.....

I'm going to throw this WHOLE thread into an uproar.......

You know what would have made me happy about the new CTS?

The Lincoln MKR concept.....from the A-pillar back.....!

Take the MKR's horizontal taillights away and give the car tail-fin-type vertical taillights.....and that's the kind of aggression in body design I was hoping for from the new CTS.

Please explain what makes this:

So much more exciting than this:

[NOS2006]

Okay, I really liked the CTS. Well, I saw it today in real life and it's so much bulkier than it would ever look in pictures! I love this fricking car!

[turbo200]

to Northie: MKR has more aggression throughout, angles are more dramatic/sweeping, and it's a fresher take on a retro design theme, just like the CTS. MKR is more impressive just speaking from a general non-expert standpoint [of course who has the best design theme up front? clearly, it's Caddy all the way].

EDIT: cars in the '40s and '50s had character like the MKR has in its lines, it's artful and exciting everywhere

Edited January 13, 2007 by turbo200

[z28luvr01]

The MKR is a great car in its own right...tone down the grille a bit and it'd be the perfect car to lead a Lincoln revival. Nothing about it's design says Cadillac, though.

[Robert Hall]

The MKR is an exciting concept, but unfortunately, it's just that...a concept. The CTS is real.

[Northstar]

to Northie: MKR has more aggression throughout, angles are more dramatic/sweeping, and it's a fresher take on a retro design theme, just like the CTS. MKR is more impressive just speaking from a general non-expert standpoint [of course who has the best design theme up front? clearly, it's Caddy all the way].

See, to me the greenhouses and C-pillar look almost identical, except that the MKR's is lower and more sleek (and would not work on a production car because of headroom). But, other than that, the only things I see that are any better on the MKR is that streak or whatever coming off the emblem (and some would not like that), and the rocker panels. The line going down the side is more pronounced, but the CTS pic sucks (only one I could find at a similar angle to MKR), and I think it will be more apparent in real life. The MKR lacks the nice bulges around the wheel wells that the CTS has, so I'm not seeing how the MKR blows it out of the water. The MKR's roof line is better, but can anyone under 6' tall fit in the back seat?

In this picture the line on the CTS is more apparent, I think:

[pow]

to Northie: MKR has more aggression throughout, angles are more dramatic/sweeping, and it's a fresher take on a retro design theme, just like the CTS. MKR is more impressive just speaking from a general non-expert standpoint [of course who has the best design theme up front? clearly, it's Caddy all the way].

EDIT: cars in the '40s and '50s had character like the MKR has in its lines, it's artful and exciting everywhere

The MKR is droopy and flabby, whereas the CTS is taut and aggressive, on all four corners, ready to prowl.

Just because the sides are no longer creased doesn't suddenly make it "soft" and "Lexus-like." The overall form of the new CTS looks even crisper and sharper than before.

[turbo200]

See, to me the greenhouses and C-pillar look almost identical, except that the MKR's is lower and more sleek (and would not work on a production car because of headroom). But, other than that, the only things I see that are any better on the MKR is that streak or whatever coming off the emblem (and some would not like that), and the rocker panels. The line going down the side is more pronounced, but the CTS pic sucks (only one I could find at a similar angle to MKR), and I think it will be more apparent in real life. The MKR lacks the nice bulges around the wheel wells that the CTS has, so I'm not seeing how the MKR blows it out of the water. The MKR's roof line is better, but can anyone under 6' tall fit in the back seat?

In this picture the line on the CTS is more apparent, I think:

greenhouse and c-pillar are direct copies from Caddy. I'm not saying MKR blows it out the water, but it has a more striking side view and rear.

The overall form of the new CTS looks even crisper and sharper than before.

I agree with this and have never said anything to the contrary. Crisper and sharper are not the same as edgy and imaginative. Crisp and sharp, and more athletic it is, due to the very form you mentioned, and I've said it once before silver is a good color on it, so maybe its colors and photos not doing it for me. However, what I've seen of it, it's just not all that i was hoping for. For reference, my favorite design at the whole LA auto show was the 3-series coupe, I thought it was perfectly bold, bodacious, and sleek, very very cool. This falls short of that, and this would have been the car to win me over from that car.

I can also appreciate your comments about MKR, except flabby, I don't see that, maybe plump or beefy. I see solid substantial tank-like, and yes maybe a little droopiness, whereas CTS appears as if shaped from a billet of block steel all coordinated on one plane.

Edited January 13, 2007 by turbo200

[pow]

I agree with this and have never said anything to the contrary. Crisper and sharper are not the same as edgy and imaginative. Crisp and sharp, and more athletic it is, due to the very form you mentioned, and I've said it once before silver is a good color on it, so maybe its colors and photos not doing it for me. However, what I've seen of it, it's just not all that i was hoping for. For reference, my favorite design at the whole LA auto show was the 3-series coupe, I thought it was perfectly bold, bodacious, and sleek, very very cool. This falls short of that, and this would have been the car to win me over from that car.

I gotta disagree. 3er coupes are so perfectly anti-bold that they're ignorable on a daily basis. The new CTS stands out... it's crisp, sharp, edgy, imaginative, whatever.

[big blue]

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