CTS coupe interior impressions

[Northstar]

Sat in one today. Let me just say it was a huge turnoff. The dash and center stack area is okay, but everything else was pretty terrible.

Seats were awful, both in terms of comfort and leather quality. Button/lever to release seatback to allow access to rear door seemed like it was about to break.

The backseat was apparently designed for midgets. I realize the rakish roofline contributes to this, but ugh. I'm only 6' tall and I had absolutely no chance of sitting comfortably back there. If I was 5'6 I may have fit.

Rear visibility is atrocious. I thought the Camaro had no rear visibility. The CTS coupe makes the Camaro seem like a greenhouse. Couldn't believe how difficult it was to see out of the rear and sides of the car.

This was a $49K example. Had NAV, roof, all the creature comforts. But for $49K, with only two use-able seats (and the two use-able seats having terrible support and bolstering), I'd have to pass. For $49K, I'd either go with something like a Corvette (since the CTS coupe may as well only have 2 seats) or go with a low miles, certified M3 coupe. Perhaps an A5 as well.

I was coming right out of the GTO, so maybe the seats aren't that bad and just suck compared to the GTO's seats (like most seats do), but I was just really turned off by the interior despite the beautiful exterior.

[pow]

Yeah, for those reasons (and others) I'd get a 335i coupe instead. Too bad it looks like a whale. Hmm, maybe 135i then?

[ocnblu]

These visibility concerns will have to be addressed. Cameras and sensors cannot substitute for natural sightlines. Driving a performance coupe should make you feel bolder, not timid, afraid to hit something because you can't see a damn thing.

[hyperv6]

The seats have been and issue with some. They can be changed often.

The visibility was no suprise as this was made clear when Lutz had to break rules to make sure the car looked like the show car.

Same with the back seat.

That is why there is a sedan offered. If these issues are a problem you can buy the car that addresses them.

Image and styling often has a price to pay.

[regfootball]

GM has been plenty guilty of design for sale, and not for living with day to day.

The CTS coupe really should have been a hatch. And perhaps some sort of glass panel added in some way, or some other carving out of the back deck (perhaps with fins?) to get some semblance of visibility out the back would have been a worthwhile concession.

GM doesn't go the distance on this crap. My Aztek actually stilled looked like horseass while having a split glass hatch which you still could not see through the lower panel.

The public doesn't have the same tolerance for functional crap these days like it used to. To apologize for it is to be in denial.

Another GM car that pays the price. LaCrosse. gunslit windows on the side and rear. It's not deadly, but it is a detriment. They couldn't have made the car just as stylish with just a little better visibility?

Camaro, even the current Malibu needs a little more function. I am willing to cut the Camaro some slack, but even the Camaro design would still be salvaged by enlarging the windows even a tiny bit. Another fault of the Camaro.....huge car, back seat is worthless.

Solstice, Sky, no trunk.

Grand Prix, pancake roof.

Aurora, Bonneville, no back seat.

GM's crossover sport vans never had the space other minivans did.

Suburban, horseass third row space.

But then curiously once in a while GM has a functional design. The trunk on a Saturn Ion is huge. The Aztek and RDV had huge cargo holds compared to other vehicles its size. Saturn Astra, surprisingly comfortable for four people. 04-07 Malibu was a fairly spacious car.

GM is not the only one at fault. The Accord Crosstour and ZDX are useless vehicles for cargo, the ZDX especially. and the crosstour looks not only like the horses ass, but it also looks plenty like the by product on the ground that came out of the horses ass as well.

Edited September 28, 2010 by regfootball

[Cory Wolfe]

I'm not one to usually give GM any slack but... People complain when the production vehicle doesn't look like the concept. When it does look like the concept, people complain that it looks like the concept due to *insert reason here*.

I love the CTS coupe because it looks like the concept. I don't care about the back seat. Will I ever be sitting back there? Absolutely not. I'm not buying this car to use it as a taxi. If I were, I'd get the wagon.

[smk4565]

I don't like how the CTS coupe looks at all, the A5 or 335i coupe looks better, especially the A5. I haven't sat in the CTS coupe, but I've been in the Camaro and it was super hard to see out of, so if the CTS is worse, it must be pretty bad. The sedan is a better buy, but there is a lot of plastic in the CTS and the leather quality isn't Lexus or Mercedes.

[Croc]

Northstar: did they put an armrest in the back seat? At LAIAS there wasn't one, and I told off the Cadillac reps about how stupid that omission was, especially since it only has 2 rear seats. For 40k. In a luxury car. With the wreath and crest.

[hyperv6]

I'm not one to usually give GM any slack but... People complain when the production vehicle doesn't look like the concept. When it does look like the concept, people complain that it looks like the concept due to *insert reason here*.

I love the CTS coupe because it looks like the concept. I don't care about the back seat. Will I ever be sitting back there? Absolutely not. I'm not buying this car to use it as a taxi. If I were, I'd get the wagon.

That is just it. GM is Damned if they do and Damned if they don't.

Just look at the up roar on the changes to the Aveo and what it has done to some.

2 door coupes are generally about style and have been for a long time. It was never easy to get into a Cutlass read seat and often there was not a lot of leg room either.

If there were no sedan to make up for the lacking issues I would say it is a mistake but the fact is GM has people covered for style or utility. Style is much more important in this class. Often as a car gets more expensive cars become more style over function in many but not all cases.

GM made it clear that this car is for the guy who owns a vette that wants a car that hauls more than 2 people but just can't see himself in a sedan. Space issues will not change but sight lines are not a big deal here as people who want this car will adapt. It has mirrors and like with many cars today the rear window gives you little sight or clear vision.

The worst vision car GM has now is the HRR or the bunker as I like to call it. This one is not easy to see out the small windows, thick pillars and the head rest in the way. It still sold very well.

The issue may keep a few away but the styling will draw more in than turn away.

Edited September 29, 2010 by hyperv6

[Robert Hall]

Tiny windows and poor outward visibility are a problem w/ so many cars today.. it's interesting to see how much better the visibility is in a car designed in the '90s compared to a car of today.

Cameras for rear visibility make sense for a Winnebago or semi truck, but with cars, the design should account for visibility..make the windows large enough to see out of and stop putting the top of the decklid 4 feet off the ground.

As far as the CTS coupe, after seeing it in person, I'm dissapointed w/ the rear quarter design...way too thick in the rear quarters, and why is the tail so tall? The car would look much better if the beltline/top of the decklid were 6 inches lower...a coupe should be sleek, not a stubby hunchback w/ a giant swollen arse..

I really wanted to like this car...the C-pillar and greenhouse in isolation look great, but the lower body is so tall and stubby in the rear, that's it's really off-putting in person from certain angles..

Edited September 29, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[BuddyP]

Since Cadillac is the "premium" brand do they actually offer true "leather seats" or is it the BS "leather seating surfaces"?

The one thing I can't get over is that you pay a premium for "leather seats" and get just the seating part of the front seats and just the middle of the seating part of back seats as true leather. Even in the Tahoe/Burbans... and the 3rd row on those is completely vinyl.

[Northstar]

Northstar: did they put an armrest in the back seat? At LAIAS there wasn't one, and I told off the Cadillac reps about how stupid that omission was, especially since it only has 2 rear seats. For 40k. In a luxury car. With the wreath and crest.

I don't recall one, but at the same time I was too busy trying to get out of the backseat because I couldn't stand tilting my head way to the side in order to sit back there.

As for the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" crowd... GM could have gone an entirely different direction on the concept vehicle too. It is possible to have the car be good looking and function. The A5 proves this.

[regfootball]

Tiny windows and poor outward visibility are a problem w/ so many cars today.. it's interesting to see how much better the visibility is in a car designed in the '90s compared to a car of today.

Cameras for rear visibility make sense for a Winnebago or semi truck, but with cars, the design should account for visibility..make the windows large enough to see out of and stop putting the top of the decklid 4 feet off the ground.

As far as the CTS coupe, after seeing it in person, I'm dissapointed w/ the rear quarter design...way too thick in the rear quarters, and why is the tail so tall? The car would look much better if the beltline/top of the decklid were 6 inches lower...a coupe should be sleek, not a stubby hunchback w/ a giant swollen arse..

I really wanted to like this car...the C-pillar and greenhouse in isolation look great, but the lower body is so tall and stubby in the rear, that's it's really off-putting in person from certain angles..

Kim Kardashian also has a giant swollen arse........

GM could have done 2 things here. leave side profile and experiment with a buttress rear pillar to drop the trunk deck height some.

the other thing would be to leave the shape, make the car a split hatch, and put a large glass panel on part of the rear face of the deck lid.

actually, the trunk lid is so small horizontally, to make it a full hatch would have worked well, the horizontal surface effectively would look like a spoiler on the hatch if a good part of the rear face of the hatch had glass instead of metal.

"Please excuse the crudity of this model, I did not have time to build it to scale". i have no photoshop skills. i had to airbrush with paint.

Edited September 29, 2010 by regfootball

[balthazar]

No one who wants to carry more than 2 people is going to buy the Coupe- it's a 2-pass car with a token rear seat. IMO.

[regfootball]

part of the reason carmakers have gone to less glass and more metal is you can get the car stiffer with more metal instead of glass and a smaller ORIFICE to frame ratio. I would guess the windshield and back glass have enormous impact on the structural rigidity of a car frame. to get the size of the windshield down in particular helps big time as well as reduces enormous cost of the expensive larger windshields and this can help insurance. the stupid pedestrian safety hangup europe had also plays into this, the eurobangers wanted taller hoods and so the newer cars would look stupid with a big fat chunky hood and a low lean rear deck. and of course that falling character line started by the first decent altima started designers at every carmaker on that path of rising to a big fat ass on the rear.

cadillac is about excess, so the ass is big, the character line is dramatic, and the rear glass is pulled back as far as they could. the way the rear pillar essentially becomes the kicked forward tailights is an almost unthinkable detail to those who remember several FEET of distance between the rear glass and the fins / taillights on any old cadillacs.

one of the most fantastic views of this car is from the top and back end where you can see the really bizarre connection of all the design elements, brought together in ways not really tried before.

but it would still be nice to see out of the f'in car. and i bet if you had a solstice you'd like to pick up grocery with it once in awhile too.

the silly backup sensors in the bumper face spoil so many vehicles these days but its absolutely criminal on this car, with all its angles and creases.

If i got a CTS the decision of which one would actually be tough. I like them all. The sedan is so expected, you'd almost want to get the coupe or sedan to really stand out. I am not sure how you could possibly parallel park the coupe.

GM is certainly no stranger to 'fastbacks'...gotta hate cleaning the rear window inside the car....

..

Edited September 30, 2010 by regfootball

[vonVeezelsnider]

I have to say that I've been impressed with the CTS' design on all models (Esp. Sedan and Coupe) and quality but every time I find myself sitting inside one I can't help but find a bunch of things about it that make me uncomfortable. Seats are all wrong and there isn't a lot of front knee room. It feels cramped up front for a car of its size.

Then again if I was a Cadillac buyer in the first place I'd be more in the mold of the DTS/XTS anyway- so my practicality and space focused biases are irrelevant to others who have different likes and needs.

Edited September 30, 2010 by vonVeezelsnider

[Croc]

I hope I one day have enough money to own one of these. It would be the perfect fleet companion to my late grandmother's 1980 Sedan de Ville that I've made clear to my father that I want to inherit. And a 2nd-gen Allante with the Northstar.

[regfootball]

I have to say that I've been impressed with the CTS' design on all models (Esp. Sedan and Coupe) and quality but every time I find myself sitting inside one I can't help but find a bunch of things about it that make me uncomfortable. Seats are all wrong and there isn't a lot of front knee room. It feels cramped up front for a car of its size.

Then again if I was a Cadillac buyer in the first place I'd be more in the mold of the DTS/XTS anyway- so my practicality and space focused biases are irrelevant to others who have different likes and needs.

everytime I have sat in a new CTS the seats to me have a weird contour to them and i do bump my knees a lot.

it's odd, the new SRX / Cadillac Vue had great seats I thought.

[Cory Wolfe]

I have to say that I've been impressed with the CTS' design on all models (Esp. Sedan and Coupe) and quality but every time I find myself sitting inside one I can't help but find a bunch of things about it that make me uncomfortable. Seats are all wrong and there isn't a lot of front knee room. It feels cramped up front for a car of its size.

Let me just say... I love being short and small. Any car feels roomy to me.

[Robert Hall]

Let me just say... I love being short and small. Any car feels roomy to me.

I've been driving an MB hardtop all week and it's been a challenge adjusting the seat so my head clears the sunroof..and the seat feels to narrow. I'm only 6'0"/240.

I parked next to a '10 E-class coupe at the bagel place this morning, and it was an interesting contrast in midsize coupe styling, 20 years apart. Mercedes has a graceful, clean coupe design without resorting to bizzaro proportions..it has an identifiable decklid that's not 4 feet tall and has plenty of glass...and I bet it's as stiff as the CTS coupe.

After seeing the CTS coupe in person, I'm dissapointed with the thick, stubby body, compared to the more graceful G37, 3-series, E-class, and A5 coupes...

Edited September 30, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Intrepidation]

If you complain about rear seat room in a coupe you automatically loose the argument.

If you complain about the seats check out the optional Recaros

[balthazar]

regfootball ~ >>"...and of course that falling character line started by the first decent altima started designers at every carmaker on that path of rising to a big fat ass on the rear."<<

This is the first design where I noticed a 'stacking' front to rear to raise the level from the 1st thru the 3rd boxes in a sedan. Not the fender level > beltline > deck transition :

Of course, more recent cars like the altima are comparatively very stubby, plus hood lines have dropped quite a bit; heightening this phenomena notably.

[SAmadei]

If you complain about rear seat room in a coupe you automatically loose the argument.

If you complain about the seats check out the optional Recaros

In 2010, I guess.

Funny... never had a leg room problem in my "downsized" '81 Bonneville coupe. In fact, growing up, we never had a 4 door... always 2 doors. I spent plenty of years in various rear seat coupes without a problems.

Of course, today, we've shrunk the trunk, shrunk the hood... stretched the wheelbase... made cars taller... brag about how new cars are so much more space efficient... yet there is less room in the back of many sedans than there was in coupes of yesteryear. I fit in the back of a '69 F-body (granted, barely... and I'm not sure my worn out back would let me do it nowadays)... but can't even think of getting in the back of a '10 Camaro. I tried to get in the back of a GTO, and it was a disaster. Both cars are bigger in all dimensions that a '69 F-body. WTH?

The solution to a skimpy CTS Coupe backseat is a proper, modern ETC based on the STS. But we know... notgoingtohappen.com.

Sure there is some rear seat room in that Coupe DeVille Balthy posted...

[balthazar]

^ Note the emphasis since 'back then' to interior volume over actual dimensions, as if transporting inflated balloons was the focus of designing a car interior. Midleading... and typical trick to mask reality.

[ClassyEldo]

If you complain about rear seat room in a coupe you automatically loose the argument.

If you complain about the seats check out the optional Recaros

Unfortunately, the Recaros are only optional on the CTS Sedans (plain and V-Series) and the CTS Coupe V-Series, but NOT the regular CTS Coupes! This is a grave faux pas and one that I hope is only temporarily due to production constraints! This, along with the tilt-only sunroof, has been a "deal breaker" for me! The sunroof should at least pop up and outside the roof when opened--and I'm aware that the Audi A5 and S5 Coupes only have tilt sunroofs as this CTS Coupe has, too. It's no excuse, Cadillac! Bring us the Recaro seating option!

[Robert Hall]

Unfortunately, the Recaros are only optional on the CTS Sedans (plain and V-Series) and the CTS Coupe V-Series, but NOT the regular CTS Coupes! This is a grave faux pas and one that I hope is only temporarily due to production constraints! This, along with the tilt-only sunroof, has been a "deal breaker" for me! The sunroof should at least pop up and outside the roof when opened--and I'm aware that the Audi A5 and S5 Coupes only have tilt sunroofs as this CTS Coupe has, too. It's no excuse, Cadillac! Bring us the Recaro seating option!

The sunroof on the coupe is tilt only? That is lame... a sunroof should slide back into the roof..I guess I'm used to Mercedes metal sunroofs that are only useful when they are open.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[pow]

At the auto show yesterday, there was a CTS-V coupe and an S5 sitting right across from it. Interior-wise, there was no comparison, IMHO. I found the Audi's interior to be much richer, higher quality, more comfortable, with more attention paid to the details. The build quality on the Audi was better, too; the doors slammed with a solid thunk, whereas the door panel on the Cadillac shuddered each time. The CTS-V does stand out in traffic, though!

[Croc]

At the auto show yesterday, there was a CTS-V coupe and an S5 sitting right across from it. Interior-wise, there was no comparison, IMHO. I found the Audi's interior to be much richer, higher quality, more comfortable, with more attention paid to the details. The build quality on the Audi was better, too; the doors slammed with a solid thunk, whereas the door panel on the Cadillac shuddered each time. The CTS-V does stand out in traffic, though!

Yeah sounds like a consensus here. Too bad, but we've known for awhile that less than 18 months out will be an interior refresh. Hopefully I'll have the money to buy one of those then.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Oldsmoboi
removed a reply to an unapproved post.

[Intrepidation]

^ Note the emphasis since 'back then' to interior volume over actual dimensions, as if transporting inflated balloons was the focus of designing a car interior. Midleading... and typical trick to mask reality.

Volume > length x width.

[SAmadei]

Volume > length x width.

There was plenty of height taken into consideration back then, as well. Nowhere in Balthy's post is the implication that length and width are the only dimensions that are important.

Lets say a human being is 6' tall, 1' deep and 2' wide, using rough estimates to simplify the math... 12 cubic feet. A cube 2.5' x 2.5' x 2.5' is 15.6 sq ft... they should be perfectly comfortable in it.

I guess if you carry your passengers like stacked wood, then volume trumps things like leg room, shoulder room, head room.