2008 Cadillac CTS: Image Gallery

[The O.C.]

OK back to the '08 CTS.....

My honest and candid comments after seeing it at NAIAS......

I'm even more underwhelmed seeing it in person than I was in pictures. I've had long discussions with Evok and OCCarNut (who both like the car) as to my reasons why I'm not as crazy about it.

As I've posted before, I don't think Cadillac went nearly far enough with the new CTS from the A-pillar back. Here's my comments as to why I feel the way I do in a more detailed list....

* The car looks disjointed.....like someone built a "bland STS" then decided "....oh $h!, we got bashed because the STS is too bland....let's throw some Art & Science on the car....."

* Stand at the side of the car and notice how the body between the A and C pillar is much smoother, curvier, without the body cuts and lines the current car has. Then look at the greenhouse and how sharp, definitive, and edgy the glass cutlines are. Totally mismatches to me.

* Also, Cadillac has felt the need to reintroduce tall, skinny, vertical "tailfin" taillights that are offset from the decklid by about 1/4-1/2 of an inch. (Just like the last-gen Eldorado.) All this does to me is make the decklid look misaligned with the taillights.....look at the headlights closely....they did the same thing up front....making the headlights look like they are misaligned with the front grille panel.

* Why does my '07 CTS have those really neat, flush-mounted headlight washers that pop out when in use......and the new '08 CTS has tacky-looking stuck on washers that are not concealed? Cost-cutting?

* The smooth bodysides are in sharp contrast to the jutting and pointed front and rear bumpers and the front styling in general.

* The front fender vents have already been mentioned......I don't so much mind the vents.....but what about the wierd cutline that runs from the A-pillar to the actual vent? It doesn't make sense to me.

It all looks "forced" to me and not really an integrated design.

THAT BEING SAID......I think taken in isolation (without a previous-gen CTS having existed) the car is an attractive car and should still do well in the marketplace. Assuredly there will be more people that disagree with me than agree with me......

The interior looks to be fabulous. I don't have one single comment I could make against the interior. I think GM nailed it on the head with the inside of the CTS.

[Drew Dowdell]

As much as I love my CTS, it's still not as accomplished of a luxury/sport sedan as the 3-series. (And I'm comparing it to my "old" bodystyle 330Ci I had....)

1) It's not as firm and solid (even with the "Sport" package) and has more float and roll and understeer than a 3-er

2) Engine is not as smooth or willing to rev to the redline....CTS higher weight blunts performance also comparatively speaking

3) Interior quality is in a whole 'nuther spectrum with the 3-er

4) The breakdowns mentioned in the article were not necessarily indidicative of 3-series quality (the two I had were flawless)

Let me put it this way......I probably agree with C&D's ranking of the CTS and the 3-series......but I love my CTS far better than that ranking indicates.....

Compair it to the 5-series. Their weight, size, and power are nearly identical. Just because Cadillacs base sedan is bigger than the 3-series doesn't mean it should be expected to perform like the 3-series. It's not like Cadillac gets a pass on the laws of physics.

[The O.C.]

Compair it to the 5-series. Their weight, size, and power are nearly identical. Just because Cadillacs base sedan is bigger than the 3-series doesn't mean it should be expected to perform like the 3-series. It's not like Cadillac gets a pass on the laws of physics.

Hey I was stating my impressions........that's all.....

Softer ride aside, I DO like the ride-and-handling on the CTS. I'm not complaining......just stating that it's obvious it's not nearly as tied-down as the Bimmers......and the 5-series is firmer as well......

[Northstar]

Hey I was stating my impressions........that's all.....

Softer ride aside, I DO like the ride-and-handling on the CTS. I'm not complaining......just stating that it's obvious it's not nearly as tied-down as the Bimmers......and the 5-series is firmer as well......

See, I think Cadillac has found the perfect medium. The people who want the ride like a BMW are going to default to BMW if they can afford it, anyways. Therefore, Cadillac would have a very small target audience if the ride was as firm as BMW, because most buyers that want that ride would just buy the BMW.

[ral1960]

* Stand at the side of the car and notice how the body between the A and C pillar is much smoother, curvier, without the body cuts and lines the current car has. Then look at the greenhouse and how sharp, definitive, and edgy the glass cutlines are. Totally mismatches to me.

* The smooth bodysides are in sharp contrast to the jutting and pointed front and rear bumpers and the front styling in general.

It all looks "forced" to me and not really an integrated design.

The interior looks to be fabulous. I don't have one single comment I could make against the interior. I think GM nailed it on the head with the inside of the CTS.

The contrast between the body and roof curves and the straight window edges are very beautiful to me. Everyone but Chrysler puts a sloping roof/backlight on their sedans, then they curve the side window line, too, so it doesn't stand out and they all look the same. What the new design gives up in unity, it gains in sensuousness and uniqueness. Not that the current car isn't unique, but it isn't sensous, which is probably why Lutz doesn't like it. I love the current car's exterior, except the headlights, but I think the new one is better, but not as ground-breaking (couldn't be). In some ways, it reminds me of the mid-90's Seville and 1970 DeVille, two of my favorite cars.

Integration is over-rated. Consider the droopy Taurus and the bangled BMWs. Every drama needs some comic relief.

I hope someone who has seen the car can tell me the window switches aren't too low on the door.

Edited January 27, 2007 by ral1960

[Z-06]

I was talking to my gf who is about to graduate from med school and she is considering buying a car around 40k. She thought of 3 cars in that field.

1. 2007 BMW 335i with sport package and premium package

2. 2007 Infiniti G35 with luxury and navigation package

3. 2008 Caddy CTS with sport and luxury package (after it comes out)

She is looking for following.

1. Gotta be a stick

2. Fun to drive yet comfortable

3. Should have a presence (a girl thinking can't help it there)

4. Should be reasonable (Meaning no roadsters or coupes)

5. Should be dependable.

She really likes the G35 looks. Based on these I told her to wait for the CTS before she gives a shot at the other two. She has not test driven any of them. So we have some testing in our hands.

Personally I do not like the BMW. It may be a great car, but there are just too many. But given a choice between the three I will go for the CTS. For

1. I enjoy how the older gen CTS handles. I can only imagine that it will get better. I was car-sitting one of my friend's CTS-V (One with the 5.7 V8) and man that thing was an animal. I know it is not a comparison with the new 3.6 DI, but it is the capability of the chasis. If the chasis can handle 400 hp, it can easily handle 300 hp car.

2. Infiniti's engine sounds like a neutered 6.

3. More yuppy crowds drive the beemer.

4. And CTS is a