Spied: 2010 CTS Wagon

[Chris_Doane]

Take your pick!

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/25/spy-sho...cts-coupe-wagon

http://www.leftlanenews.com/cadillac-cts-wagon.html

http://news.windingroad.com/body-stylesmar...cts-sport-wagon

http://www.motortrend.com/future/spied_veh...s_wagon_spycam/

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_li...cts_wagon_spied

http://www.automobilemag.com/new_and_futur...pied/index.html

[SuperSport623]

damn sexy!

[A Horse With No Name]

Awesome!

Thanks, Chris D. for posting this.

Chris

[Brougham-Holiday]

Great! I just hope that America's dislike of the wagon won't hurt this beauty's sales!

[ZL-1]

Great! I just hope that America's dislike of the wagon won't hurt this beauty's sales!

My side of the Pond likes wagons, so if you guys don't want them, just send them over here

The wagon, the coupe, but especially the 2.9L diesel V6 are what Cadillac needs to take a larger step in establishing itself here. I'd love to see a smaller diesel engine, such as the TTid 1.9L diesel I4 to go after the 520d.

EDIT - Even in camo it looks like the LeftlaneNews rendering is pretty close to what the real thing will look like.

Edited April 26, 2008 by ZL-1

[Croc]

Nervous about the ginormous rear blind spots...

[ocnblu]

I was gonna say "whoa, another coup for Chris Doane", but it's not a coup, it's a station wagon.

Good job, sir.

[pow]

This wagon is a natural complement to the sedan and coupe, and if anything, I like the styling even more. The center of interest has been pushed back, giving it a more cab-rearward "slingshot" appearance. The new visual weight above the rear wheels takes attention away from the busy front end, and this starker contrast helps to emphasize the hood's length. Also, the taller, more vertical liftgate and D-pillars go well with the CTS's tall, blunt front end. I like the wheels, too, which look larger than they are.

Headroom appears better than the sedan's, though this wagon doesn't address the other complaint I have with the CTS sedan's rear seat: poor outward visibility and difficult ingress/egress. With a more vertical C-pillar specific to this bodystyle, like you would find on a BMW, Audi, or Mercedes wagon, passengers won't have to lean forward just to peer out, or duck their heads to climb in. I suppose Cadillac wanted to reuse the rear doors and windows.

Edited April 26, 2008 by empowah

[K.C.]

Great shots. Look forward to seeing a production model.

[thegriffon]

Nervous about the ginormous rear blind spots...

WTF, is that a station wagon or a panel van?

[Northstar]

That has to be the fattest D-Pillar in the history of civilization!

[vonVeezelsnider]

I like it from the rear doors forward...

[Farkas]

That has to be the fattest D-Pillar in the history of civilization!

Naw, I think that award is still held by the new Scion xB:

[daves87rs]

Sexy!

[bobo]

It's unfortunate the rear doors come straight from the sedan rather than having a more vertical C-pillar. The idea of a CTS wagon is fantastic as people move on from gargantuan SUVs, but the execution could be much better.

[big blue]

I personally hate tails that reach the roof ala CR-V and Volvo. Just give me a lower stanced Provoq rear end look and I'd be happy.

[Intrepidation]

I'm diggin' it so far.

[Oracle of Delphi]

And now you know why there is no G8 Sportwagon.

[Northstar]

And now you know why there is no G8 Sportwagon.

I don't see how they would really compete with each other. G8 is quite a bit bigger (at least sedan vs. sedan), and significantly cheaper. Comparably equipped the CTS is probably $10k more.

[Bimmer325]

I don't see how they would really compete with each other. G8 is quite a bit bigger (at least sedan vs. sedan), and significantly cheaper. Comparably equipped the CTS is probably $10k more.

I think that's the point.

Why go for the CTS when a larger RWD wagon can be had for $10k less?

[Robert Hall]

I think that's the point.

Why go for the CTS when a larger RWD wagon can be had for $10k less?

Bingo..Cadillac probably influenced the decision...they wouldn't want competition from a larger, cheaper V8 Pontiac...this way they get exclusivity on GM RWD sport wagons.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Gold star for you two!

[turbo200]

Gold star for you two!

that's all well and good. BUT you have a case of design not being inherently desirable enough to and quality not being substantially different that is really the inherent problem. CTS is good, but the interior quality isn't totally up to the par of even Infiniti, compare it to Audi and you have a knockout in favor of Germans. exterior design is another place that historically would favor the caddy, I don't know what this wagon will end up looking like, but it's GM's own fault for dumbing down thier cadiilac design philosophy. caddy should always be rich and distinctive; while overall I want to like the CTS, and i do, there are some points of it I find hard to digest. such as the big level of empty space on the sides that are flat and boring for the most part, as well as an overall geriatric look when viewed from side angles where the wheels are conspiring with the dull flat sides to make it seem too demure.

with audi, you have lower level vw passat and jetta wagons, conveniently being offered with diesels soon that could be called competitors to audi, well only the A4 if we're talking exclusively features like engine size. so the A4 is bought, and in droves here in los angeles, i mean literally, and that's because it is a super classy classic wagon that has so much style going for it. everytime i see one i convince myself more and more that i want it. it's a great design.

and gm's own ladder should reflect this. pontiac is offering a real conservative elegant approach, and well what do you know so does Cadillac. the Cadillac wagon may be more stand out thanks to more adventurous and liberal design cues than the sedan, but cadillacs should offer an incredible style that is unparalleled within GM, and every division should benefit as a result, since they can reach higher as Cadillac gets better and better.

Edited April 27, 2008 by turbo200

[Croc]

Man, gotta disagree with you on the CTS interior. I think it is class-leading, and then some. You know how hard to please I am with interiors, too...

[turbo200]

Man, gotta disagree with you on the CTS interior. I think it is class-leading, and then some. You know how hard to please I am with interiors, too...

design-wise i think it's pretty good. but the quality just isn't there, i mean the center stack is painted plastic, and feels it. the controls on the center stack are all pretty flimsy and unsubstantial feeling, it's nothing like the good feelings I got when I sat in my darling, the Audi A3. As I said, even an Infiniti G35 had appreciably better materials and more artful trim selections, like a real wood that was tasteful and nicely toned.

the whole quality thing is just another part of the luxury car that has to add to the feeling you're really getting what you paid for. combined with a 3.6 DI that may not be up to par with the levels of smoothness of other similarly expensive cars, along with steering that may not offer the right amount of feedback or transiate conditions in a genuine fashion as opposed to artificially, combined with handling prowess that may not match the standards set by similar sized car albeit more expensive, like the 5-series, and you get an expensive luxury car that doesn't seem to offer the same level of experience the others set.

mostly though if the quality were improved, still a bunch of work needs to be done, that rear center armrest is garbage and belongs in a Chevrolet not a Cadillac, the front cupholder design lacks any sophistication and good taste, again belongs in a Cobalt not a cadillac.......if all of these things were perfect, you'd hear me crowing more about the CTS and my argument above wouldn't stand.

[Croc]

Just about all center stacks are painted plastic. Also, I'm pretty sure the wood is real. If not, then it's a damn good fake because I'm a snob against plood. The only thing about the rear center armrest I did not like was the exposed screws, but I've been told that that's due to a missing rubber thing they remove for the auto shows. I have yet to confirm that, though. Overall, I found quality to be better than comparable BMW and Mercedes interiors. Those interiors left e cold, and didn't feel all that great to me. Sterile and busy, actually.

[turbo200]

okay. i'm not engaging in a pissing contest with you. when i'm reporting on things of this nature i am trying to be as objective and thorough as can be, i want to see these themes succeed at gm, i want to see them utilize thier brands the best way i can see them being used. i believe in brand management, and the way forward is through basic tenats and principles. i want to see what other buyers see when they look at a car and i want to understand how ideas cement in buyers' minds, and what ultimately motivates them to make the decision. the first thing people will notice is the design. far above quality issues this is the most important thing. however, what i am trying to say is a general lackadaisical approach to quality will lead to a poorer experience all around. one piece alone is enough to give the impression the quality may not be all there yet. and once you move successively through the different areas of a car's interior you learn more about the manufacturer's processes as well as thier priorities.

in an audi, it's damn clear a complete obsession with solidarity, tight tight fits, super substantial pieces, and the right meticulous design touches all lead to an impression of 'you got a high end car'. in the infiniti i mentioned the impression was only slightly less so, everything still felt new age, new tech.

you get into the CTS adn the first thing i went for was the beautiful looking center stack, i wanted to see if looks measured up with substance, what's behind the veneer. it didn't measure up. the painted plastic you noted is so commonly used is even more plasticy feeling and with a glossier finish that overall lead to a cheaper impression than what you get in either of the other two cars i've mentioned. move on to the controls and they are disappointing compared to what older cars like the IS and 3-series use. move on to the rear center armrest and there's no integrated cupholders, it's short on length and width, has all the moving sophistication of an out of date lazy boy mechanism, and the leather quality is atrocious. then you have the rear controls pulled straight from the GM parts bin, as bland and design-less as ever, sticking out like a sore point in an otherwise nicely designed interior. then the most important test, how does my intimate area, as a driver feel. the steering wheel had some jarringly designed pieces that have breaks where other companies are smoothly covered over. the leather on the steering wheel didn't feel all that high quality. the biggest disappointment, the hollow feeling of the door panels that move around in their place. cheap cheap. not needed.

before i go further, i have to say with all my complaints, look GM has obviously moved the ball forward. but if this were my $50k I was spending on GM's newest design wonder, and the top of the line CTS with the sport package wheels is a wonder to behold, it is very cool, dull sides aside, if this were my $50k, i'd be poring over all these details and it would aid me in my final consideration. not everyone is going to be as thorough as me, but if even one of those pieces i mentioned above are truly inspected and compared they will have a lesser image overall of the CTS, and it will all contribute to the notion that Cadillac isn't worth the money.

with the CTS, gm proves cost cutting still rules the roast. mind you, the quality is good, very good, but not acceptable considering where others are. i'm using benchmarks that are in the same price category, cheaper actually, and are at the top of thier game. there is no reason, no excuse for GM not offering the best in materials this generation has to offer.

EDIT: sterile, busy, cold, austere, are all design impressions. you didn't like the deisign of MB and BMW. that's cool. i happen to love thier philosophy. i find it stately, clean, luxurious, classic, classy, with all the right details in all the right places. i find the 3-series coupe with the orange leather seats and a cashmere and black interior to be one of the most phenomonal design cases in all the industry. but i like uninterrupted flow. i love that characteristic. when everything is natural and just works beautifully, like this car beneath me. all the right details in all the right places, no fuss, minimalist touches, don't mess with success....

Edited April 27, 2008 by turbo200

[Croc]

OK I'm gonna be honest...I read the first two sentences of that and got tired of the wall of text. Chill, man. No "pissing contest" here, just sharing my impressions as well. You are not the lord tastemaker on interior design, and really, you're the first and only person I've seen criticize the CTS interior as not being up to par for the class. That's surprising to me, and that's why I challenged it. But forget I mentioned anything; I'm not interested in reading another pompous rant.

FYI: the CTS rear armrest DOES include cupholders.

[turbo200]

sorry you took it that way. you challenged and i guess i just got a little annoyed because i thought i had made my point already. i really think thier is substance to what i'm saying, otherwise i wouldn't be saying it. remember with the CTS it is the newest car in its class and it should leapfrog the competition, but even acura has better consistency in a lower level RDX, probably the upcoming TSX as well. I think the crux to my argument is that i don't find the CTS interior overall to be offensive, but the interior materials i do find offensive but only in light of where the competition is. i think if you read closer and not just the opinions of people on this site, you will find criticism for cadillac's interior, for example some of the major magazines did, all the while praising the rest of the car. my point is not that it isn't a great car, but that there is still some room for improvement, and as a Cadillac it really should to put it bluntly shock and awe in every detail.

I was wrong on the cupholders, but I know for a fact thier design and integration and size is poor, i remember there was a huge flaw with that.

Edited April 27, 2008 by turbo200

[Northstar]

I think that's the point.

Why go for the CTS when a larger RWD wagon can be had for $10k less?

So why go for the CTS when a larger RWD sedan can be had for $10k less? I realize the sedan market is significantly bigger, but this is a direct comparison between two versions of two different cars. There are a lot more people who can afford a G8 but can't afford a CTS wagon.

Bingo..Cadillac probably influenced the decision...they wouldn't want competition from a larger, cheaper V8 Pontiac...this way they get exclusivity on GM RWD sport wagons.

Same as I just posted above. Why wouldn't Cadillac want to get exclusivity on GM RWD sedans? And again, the CTS is out of many people's price range, the G8 would not be.

[Northstar]

even an Infiniti G35 had appreciably better materials and more artful trim selections, like a real wood that was tasteful and nicely toned.

After reading that, I can't believe you are serious.

[pow]

OK I'm gonna be honest...I read the first two sentences of that and got tired of the wall of text.

Sure it'd be nice if Cadillac used brushed aluminum instead of silver painted plastic, but the Germans do the same thing, only choosing to leave their plastic matte black. It's just that silvery plastic naturally draws more attention than black plastic, and the CTS uses this silvery material much more prominently as a centerpiece of the interior.

And before somebody mentions how BMW and Audi use real aluminum, those are large strips of metal plastered on the dash and doors, just like how real wood trim is used in the CTS. I'm talking about the material used to surround buttons and knobs, which apart from maybe the G35's "Washi paper" metal, is always plastic.

[pow]

I was wrong on the cupholders, but I know for a fact thier design and integration and size is poor, i remember there was a huge flaw with that.

It's just a matter of preference and philosophy. Some like their rear armrests floppy, loose, and accessible, while others prefer heavy, over engineered, tightly-toleranced center armrests that require a deliberate pull.

[Robert Hall]

So why go for the CTS when a larger RWD sedan can be had for $10k less? I realize the sedan market is significantly bigger, but this is a direct comparison between two versions of two different cars. There are a lot more people who can afford a G8 but can't afford a CTS wagon.

Same as I just posted above. Why wouldn't Cadillac want to get exclusivity on GM RWD sedans? And again, the CTS is out of many people's price range, the G8 would not be.

The interesting factoid is Cadillac DID have exclusivity on GM RWD sedans...the G8 is the first non-Cadillac NA RWD sedan in 12 years...sad..12 years of nothing but FWD for the rest of GM.

[Croc]

I was wrong on the cupholders, but I know for a fact thier design and integration and size is poor, i remember there was a huge flaw with that.

I really don't know about this. They were actually pretty standard from my experience with them. I've been looking for a pic of them, but haven't found one yet. I really fail to see what is so objectionable about them, though.

[Camino LS6]

The interesting factoid is Cadillac DID have exclusivity on GM RWD sedans...the G8 is the first non-Cadillac NA RWD sedan in 12 years...sad..12 years of nothing but FWD for the rest of GM.

Very sad.

I'd rather have a G8 sedan, wagon, or coupe than a CTS version.

Bleh, I'm weary of "luxury" brands anyway.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I call on PCS (As always)

GM has explicitly said that the G8 wagon was canceled because of capacity issues.

In fact, according to news by Car & Driver last month, GM is rethinking the business case for the wagon thanks to HUGE demand for the sedan. The article states that production would join the Camaro and export from North America.

*IF this division verses division mentality still exists at GM, then something is still very wrong. There certainly is room for both a CTS wagon and G8 wagon, especially given the LOW volume of both entries. This article specifically states that most of the CTS wagons will be exported. But, as always, GM's ignorant bureaucracy ruins a beautiful plan.

Edited April 28, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[GMTruckGuy74]

So why go for the CTS when a larger RWD sedan can be had for $10k less? I realize the sedan market is significantly bigger, but this is a direct comparison between two versions of two different cars. There are a lot more people who can afford a G8 but can't afford a CTS wagon.

Same as I just posted above. Why wouldn't Cadillac want to get exclusivity on GM RWD sedans? And again, the CTS is out of many people's price range, the G8 would not be.

I guess GM doesn't want my money then. I can't afford the Cadillac CTS wagon, and I'd be stretching a bit to afford the G8 version, but at least it would be within range, whereas the CTS wagon is not. So stupid for GM to limit their sales because of a divisions rants that they have to be the sole provider of a car