2014 Cadillac CTS To Start At $46,025*, VSport To Start At $59,995*

And the Higher Prices have arrived. I expect the V will be in the $80K+ range this time around.

And the Higher Prices have arrived. I expect the V will be in the $80K+ range this time around.

I share the expectation. GM appears to be on the right path with the core (read RWD/AWD) Cadillac models. It will take a while for the image building at Cadillac to be complete, but GM is doing it right (except for no AWD on the CTS V-Sport, IMHO). Also, the moving of Cadillac to pricing levels closer to (eventually equal to) the German trio means Buick gets more breathing room. As long as GM doesn't try to make Chevrolet an all-things-to-all-folks brand, that is...

While everything looks and sounds right and I was expecting a powerful turbo 4, I still think it sucks that we have gone down this road. Turbo and small engines do not make for long lasting power plants in my humble opinion. But then I grew up on big v8 engines.

i don't have an issue with 46k to start. we all know it will be under 40k by the end of the model year when discounts and incentives are in the mix.

it's a healthy enough gap between buick + the ATS and this. And it's low enough to compete with the competition.

I just hope the rear seat has room.......probably not...........

I really do think the V Sport will sell like hotcakes.

And the Higher Prices have arrived. I expect the V will be in the $80K+ range this time around.

I share the expectation. GM appears to be on the right path with the core (read RWD/AWD) Cadillac models. It will take a while for the image building at Cadillac to be complete, but GM is doing it right (except for no AWD on the CTS V-Sport, IMHO). Also, the moving of Cadillac to pricing levels closer to (eventually equal to) the German trio means Buick gets more breathing room. As long as GM doesn't try to make Chevrolet an all-things-to-all-folks brand, that is...

I have been preaching the space being cleared for Buick to thrive with out stepping on Chevy or Cadillac.

I ponder that the V could be in line for a strong AWD system since the price would give GM the ability to do it right. This would also set them apart form Buick and Chevy even more. I expect the V to have over 600 HP and they may need all 4 tires to put it down. The Extra Hp is useless if you can put it down or have to have the computer kill the power to get the car to hook up.

AWD in the V would not surprise me at all. It also would give the reason to step up from the V sport.

It would be good big picture marketing.

This is what I expected, pretty close to Audi A6 or Infiniti M pricing, and a little below BMW and Benz. If it sells, I wouldn't be surprised if they push the price up another $2,000 in year 2. It will be interesting to see what the sales are like, since the Lexus GS, A6 and Infiniti M aren't strong sellers in this class.

A good start. I hope GM does not chase the Germans by offering equipments that should be standard for this price range as options and charging arms, legs and crotches for them. Put the base priced directly in line with Germans, but offer tremendous value that should be the mantra.

Like the 2014 Corvette, this car is another 99.9% (nothing is perfect) effort from GM unlike the other compromises we have seen.

no doubt it's a great car, but w/i ~10% of a vette w/o a v8? are they trying to limit the crowd for these new, when they obviously should have the most markup to see what the public wants anyway?

I'm not paying $46K for a four cylinder car... even if it says Bugatti... and takes flight.

The 4-cylinder 5-series will start over $50k for 2014. I wouldn't pay $50k for a 4 cylinder either (assuming I could afford $50k to begin with), but people will. If it were me, I'd want my car in this class to have at least 6 cylinders. I love V8s, but the A6 3.0 and 535i have 0-60 times around 5.2 seconds, that is quick, a V8 isn't much quicker in everyday driving and is much thirstier.

I know people will fork out $50k for the BMW, the question is will they pay $46k 4-cylinder Cadillac and over $50k I assume for 320 hp V6.

The 4-cylinder 5-series will start over $50k for 2014. I wouldn't pay $50k for a 4 cylinder either (assuming I could afford $50k to begin with), but people will. If it were me, I'd want my car in this class to have at least 6 cylinders. I love V8s, but the A6 3.0 and 535i have 0-60 times around 5.2 seconds, that is quick, a V8 isn't much quicker in everyday driving and is much thirstier.

I know people will fork out $50k for the BMW, the question is will they pay $46k 4-cylinder Cadillac and over $50k I assume for 320 hp V6.

I couldn't imagine paying $30k or more for a 4 cylinder. When I was younger, 4 cylinders were for cheap econoboxes. Times have changed, just very strange to see 4 cylinders--which were the very definition of 'low end'--- being in premium priced cars. At least they aren't FWD...

The Audi is FWD and 4-Cylinder

The Jaguar XF 2.0 is $47,000, but $50,000 will get you the 340 hp supercharged V6. I don't know if these car companies are putting the 4-cylinders in for CAFE or to keep the price under $50k, or as a way to say $47k gets you the crap engine, so pay $3,000 more for the good one. Perhaps it is all of the above, but I wouldn't want a 4-banger in a mid-level luxury car even if the 8-speed tranny makes it accelerate like a V6.

The only exception I can see is a diesel 4-cylinder because it has loads of torque and possibly 40 mpg, that makes it a sensible buy especially for people that do a lot of highway driving.

I notice the option packaging is very similar to the ATS on the non-Vsport models...

The pricing puts it at about $1600~3200 less than an equivalent 5-series. Not out of place as a "sticketr price"

The real question is how much discount GM will end up bribing customers with... nobody pays MSRP... not even for BMWs.

The Jaguar XF 2.0 is $47,000, but $50,000 will get you the 340 hp supercharged V6. I don't know if these car companies are putting the 4-cylinders in for CAFE or to keep the price under $50k, or as a way to say $47k gets you the crap engine, so pay $3,000 more for the good one. Perhaps it is all of the above, but I wouldn't want a 4-banger in a mid-level luxury car even if the 8-speed tranny makes it accelerate like a V6.

The only exception I can see is a diesel 4-cylinder because it has loads of torque and possibly 40 mpg, that makes it a sensible buy especially for people that do a lot of highway driving.

Jaguar doesn't care about CAFE, it's a small fine (per car) and they actually itemized it added it to the sticker (really*)! When the XF first came out it had two V8 powerplants -- with or without supercharging -- that's it. It stayed that way from the 2009 through 2011 model year, although the 2010 and 2011 V8s are 5.0L vs 4.2L in the 2009 cars. 2012s actually got a face lift and the new engines but NOT the 8-speed. 2013 brought the 8-speed online. Under Tata, Jaguar has a progressive product upgrade strategy, every year brings something new instead of waiting 4~5 years for a major overhaul of the model.

*I just acquired a 2010 XF Supercharged (5.0L SC w/ 470 bhp) to replace the 2005 C55 AMG... they kept the original window sticker.

The Jaguar XF 2.0 is $47,000, but $50,000 will get you the 340 hp supercharged V6. I don't know if these car companies are putting the 4-cylinders in for CAFE or to keep the price under $50k, or as a way to say $47k gets you the crap engine, so pay $3,000 more for the good one. Perhaps it is all of the above, but I wouldn't want a 4-banger in a mid-level luxury car even if the 8-speed tranny makes it accelerate like a V6.

The only exception I can see is a diesel 4-cylinder because it has loads of torque and possibly 40 mpg, that makes it a sensible buy especially for people that do a lot of highway driving.

Jaguar doesn't care about CAFE, it's a small fine (per car) and they actually itemized it added it to the sticker (really*)! When the XF first came out it had two V8 powerplants -- with or without supercharging -- that's it. It stayed that way from the 2009 through 2011 model year, although the 2010 and 2011 V8s are 5.0L vs 4.2L in the 2009 cars. 2012s actually got a face lift and the new engines but NOT the 8-speed. 2013 brought the 8-speed online. Under Tata, Jaguar has a progressive product upgrade strategy, every year brings something new instead of waiting 4~5 years for a major overhaul of the model.

*I just acquired a 2010 XF Supercharged (5.0L SC w/ 470 bhp) to replace the 2005 C55 AMG... they kept the original window sticker.

How do you like the Jaguar? I drove a 2009 XF, not supercharged, and it was nice but it feels cramped because of the high belt line. I think even the 09's will be out of my price range, unless it has 90k miles or something, and I don't want that.

Jaguar probably doesn't care about CAFE, but they do care about getting buyers, and I think V8 and Super V8 was overkill for most people. Offering 4 and 6 cylinders gives adequate performance and fuel economy that people want, because 15/23 might turn a lot of people away too.

The turbo 4 is hitting all these luxury cars because an engine like that can make 250-270 lb-ft of torque at a low rpm and with an 8 speed transmission that can get a 0-60 time under 7 seconds which is more than adequate for most. But like Cubical, I still wouldn't want one, I'd want a 6-cylinder at least.

How do you like the Jaguar? I drove a 2009 XF, not supercharged, and it was nice but it feels cramped because of the high belt line. I think even the 09's will be out of my price range, unless it has 90k miles or something, and I don't want that.

Jaguar probably doesn't care about CAFE, but they do care about getting buyers, and I think V8 and Super V8 was overkill for most people. Offering 4 and 6 cylinders gives adequate performance and fuel economy that people want, because 15/23 might turn a lot of people away too.

The turbo 4 is hitting all these luxury cars because an engine like that can make 250-270 lb-ft of torque at a low rpm and with an 8 speed transmission that can get a 0-60 time under 7 seconds which is more than adequate for most. But like Cubical, I still wouldn't want one, I'd want a 6-cylinder at least.

The 2009 has the "old" 4.2 V8. For 2010 through 2012 they had the 5.0 VVT/VVL DI V8s -- both supercharged @ 470~510hp and NA @ 385 hp. The engine is smooth enough and pretty quick revving (for a cross plane V8), but it is a little noisier than the 4.2 due to Direct Injection. Mileage is not bad for the kind of car and engine that they are... 15/21 is actually NOT BAD considering that you are talking about a 4300 lbs car with a 470 or 510 hp engine. The M5 which is in a similar weight and output bracket is 11/17 MPG. For 2013 they added the 2.0T and 3.0 S/C.

The 2013 2.0T is 7.9 secs to 60 mph. I had one as a loaner during warranty service of the XF (audible belt noise / tensioner issue). Driving experience is mixed. It is surprising peppy once it gets in its game or if you keep the revs up above 3000 rpm. The car feels faster than it actually is when driven hard and the I4 is in fact quieter than the V8. The problem with the 2.0T is that at idle or when lugging around at 1500~2000 rpm (which the 8-speed tranny likes to do) stepping on the gas brings a almost 1 sec of slug like acceleration before load builds and the turbo spools enough to get the car moving with enthusiasm. Also, the I4 revs slower than the V8 (even when you just blip the throttle in neutral). With a $3K price difference which covers not just the engine but also additional cabin equipment I'll say the 3.0 S/C is a much better buy. Anyone looking at a $50K car is not going to car much about whether it is 19/30 or 17/28 mpg.

The 2.0T BTW is a Ford engine except for the dress cover. It is the same exact power plant as you will find in the Focus ST or the Fusion in exactly the same tune making the same torque and 2 hp less than Ford's applications mainly due to the XF's quieter exhaust.