2008 Cadillac CTS: Image Gallery

[aldw]

i'm thinking the press release is a little more believeable than the guy GM hired for his presentation skills to work the floor.

e-brake is an issue.

the only other thing wrong with this car is that damn GM badge on the side. yuck. LaNeve needs to give his head a shake

E-brake shouldn't be an issue, electronic control should mean just pushing a button instead of pedals or handlevers.

[turbo200]

sorry, its not.

we all know the 3 series sells well because it is the poster child for status seekers. cadillac and the CTS has sold based on merit. the 3 series proves its worth merit, but i'd lay MONEY down that 50% + of 3 series buyers are buying for status / fashion reasons. In a lot of places, all the 3 series is is a nicer chick car.

c'mon we all know that many Bimmers are sold just like Lexus is.....to status seeking wealthies who need to drive the 'in' car.

I like the 3 series but admit, I'm really damn tired of the melted butter BMW look. And the flame surfacing crap is so tired. And all their interiors seem so crappy and dismal lately. i sat in a 6 series at the auto show last year and it was crap IMHO. Mercedes outclasses BMW interiors by many miles. The 7 series interior is atrociously laid out. BMW's door panels these days are garbage.

That's why this new CTS is so refreshing. its stylish. the current 3 series interior is quite econocar in comparison.

you really don't listen to anything anyone has to say, do you? which is why I can't lend credence to the things you say.

[Northstar]

In 2005, the 4/5 year old CTS was competing against a 7 year old BMW.

Ah, I see what you meant. That's true, but it's also true that now the CTS is competing against an almost brand-new BMW, so I guess both of our points are valid.

6th out of 8 to me is not really competitive. That's not even mid-pack.

6th out of 8 is not good, but the fact that it didn't place last when it clearly had the worst interior, least features, and a higher price than most of them is, because that only leaves handling to make up all the points that it lost on the others. My point was that you wanted evidence that the CTS performed well, and I think this is pretty evident when it has all of those things going against it yet doesn't place last.

[regfootball]

you really don't listen to anything anyone has to say, do you? which is why I can't lend credence to the things you say.

DAMN, i JUST spilled my COFFEE all over myself because I JUST realized I CARE about whether you think I said to myself, "you know I think I changed my mind and absolutely agree with turbo!"

I am reporting the news as I SEE IT. I ain't making it up. You don't have to agree. Likewise I am sure. I just find it funny you're lettting it eat at your shorts like that.

[Cory Wolfe]

sorry, its not.

we all know the 3 series sells well because it is the poster child for status seekers. cadillac and the CTS has sold based on merit. the 3 series proves its worth merit, but i'd lay MONEY down that 50% + of 3 series buyers are buying for status / fashion reasons. In a lot of places, all the 3 series is is a nicer chick car.

c'mon we all know that many Bimmers are sold just like Lexus is.....to status seeking wealthies who need to drive the 'in' car.

I like the 3 series but admit, I'm really damn tired of the melted butter BMW look. And the flame surfacing crap is so tired. And all their interiors seem so crappy and dismal lately. i sat in a 6 series at the auto show last year and it was crap IMHO. Mercedes outclasses BMW interiors by many miles. The 7 series interior is atrociously laid out. BMW's door panels these days are garbage.

That's why this new CTS is so refreshing. its stylish. the current 3 series interior is quite econocar in comparison.

Personally, I'm not sure how the Honda TL can sell anymore with the new CTS, G35, revised 335i, IS, etc.

Reg, we all know your opinion of certain vehicles is always ignorant. It's part of your charm.

[regfootball]

I'm not sure I'm summing up my point sweetly enough.

The 3 series is a fanstastic car. I just think it gets as many sales from reputation, and the poseur set, as it does from people who legitimately buy the car for performance, whereas the CTS has generated nearly all its cred and sales from the performance aspect alone. The CTS earns every sale it gets in spite of the fact its a GM product where the Bimmer gets far too many of its sales just because its a BMW and that's what style seekers buy and don't give 25 cents a care about the performance of the car.

I guess when you talk 3 series sales, I tend to throw away half of those sales, just like I tend to discount half the camry sales. And then, I think the CTS for 2008 has so many more bases covered, I think it represents a greater value proposition over the 3 series in so many ways.

Edited January 18, 2007 by regfootball

[pow]

I'm not sure I'm summing up my point sweetly enough.

The 3 series is a fanstastic car. I just think it gets as many sales from reputation, and the poseur set, as it does from people who legitimately buy the car for performance, whereas the CTS has generated nearly all its cred and sales from the performance aspect alone. The CTS earns every sale it gets in spite of the fact its a GM product where the Bimmer gets far too many of its sales just because its a BMW and that's what style seekers buy and don't give 25 cents a care about the performance of the car.

I guess when you talk 3 series sales, I tend to throw away half of those sales, just like I tend to discount half the camry sales. And then, I think the CTS for 2008 has so many more bases covered, I think it represents a greater value proposition over the 3 series in so many ways.

The idea that the CTS "earns" its sale only through merit is hilarious. If that were the case, why would merit-seekers intentionally buy second best?

Reasons for buying a Cadillac are as influenced by style, image, recognition, and loyalty as with any other brand. Our 80-year-old neighbor owns a vinyl-roofed CTS because she "wants a Cadillac" and the CTS is the most affordable one for her. I see tons of CTSes with limo tints and big chrome "dubs", probably purchased by people who like the "bling" Cadillac brand image. Style-seekers exist for all brands and "coolness" influences most all car buys. Why else would GM have "GM Style" events and billboards all over the place?

But anyway, mere observations are always clouded by bias. Unless I see some study that asks "Are you vain? Are you image conscious? If so, what car do you drive?", your statement that "BMW buyers are style-seekers" holds no more truth than saying "Cadillac buyers are merit-seekers."

Edited January 19, 2007 by empowah

[BigPontiac]

Ah, I see what you meant. That's true, but it's also true that now the CTS is competing against an almost brand-new BMW, so I guess both of our points are valid.

Agreed.

6th out of 8 is not good, but the fact that it didn't place last when it clearly had the worst interior, least features, and a higher price than most of them is, because that only leaves handling to make up all the points that it lost on the others. My point was that you wanted evidence that the CTS performed well, and I think this is pretty evident when it has all of those things going against it yet doesn't place last.

As was mentioned in the article, the CTS has improved each time they test it. Hopefully the 2008 will be the leap forward they need after applying what they've learned. I'm sure C&D will do a new comparison later on this year...something like the CTS, 335i, G35, TL Type-S, IS350, MKS, etc.

[BigPontiac]

The idea that the CTS "earns" its sale only through merit is hilarious. If that were the case, why would merit-seekers intentionally buy second best?

Reasons for buying a Cadillac are as influenced by style, image, recognition, and loyalty as with any other brand. Our 80-year-old neighbor owns a vinyl-roofed CTS because she "wants a Cadillac" and the CTS is the most affordable one for her. I see tons of CTSes with limo tints and big chrome "dubs", probably purchased by people who like the "bling" Cadillac brand image. Style-seekers exist for all brands and "coolness" influences most all car buys. Why else would GM have "GM Style" events and billboards all over the place?

But anyway, mere observations are always clouded by bias. Unless I see some study that asks "Are you vain? Are you image conscious? If so, what car do you drive?", your statement that "BMW buyers are style-seekers" holds no more truth than saying "Cadillac buyers are merit-seekers."

Someone in my town has a CTS with the fake convertible top (white/tan top) like this:

It pains me whenever I see it! I wish they'd crack down the dealers...that kinda of stuff isn't helping remake the brand at all...

[Northstar]

I'm sure they're aftermarket companies that do that, not just dealers. The buyer could have bought it and taken it somewhere to have that done. GM can't do much about it...

[pow]

I'm sure they're aftermarket companies that do that, not just dealers. The buyer could have bought it and taken it somewhere to have that done. GM can't do much about it...

They could always....

.... void their warranty!

[regfootball]

i cannot remember seeing any fake vinyl roof cts's, and honestly almost none with dubs.

all the boys around here looking for penis extensions are driving imports and chrysler 300's.

[The O.C.]

we all know the 3 series sells well because it is the poster child for status seekers. cadillac and the CTS has sold based on merit. the 3 series proves its worth merit, but i'd lay MONEY down that 50% + of 3 series buyers are buying for status / fashion reasons. In a lot of places, all the 3 series is is a nicer chick car.

c'mon we all know that many Bimmers are sold just like Lexus is.....to status seeking wealthies who need to drive the 'in' car.

GM WISHES to high hell they had a car that "status seekers" would buy.

There's not a GM car on the market (maybe Escalade) that people buy for "status/fashion" reasons.....not even CTS.

If BMW has endowed the populace with THAT high of a regard for their marque, then I give them 100% props for that.......

[VenSeattle]

GM WISHES to high hell they had a car that "status seekers" would buy.

There's not a GM car on the market (maybe Escalade) that people buy for "status/fashion" reasons.....not even CTS.

If BMW has endowed the populace with THAT high of a regard for their marque, then I give them 100% props for that.......

Hmmmm......

HUMMER & SAAB (All 30 of them) are all pretty much sold on status. Corvette too... you should know, you're one of them. I just can't picture an ex-BMW employee driving a performance car that didn't have some sort of status/fashion draw...

[The O.C.]

Hmmmm......

HUMMER & SAAB (All 30 of them) are all pretty much sold on status. Corvette too... you should know, you're one of them. I just can't picture an ex-BMW employee driving a performance car that didn't have some sort of status/fashion draw...

I don't really see people buying Corvette for status or fashion at all.......people buy it because they respect what the car is and what it can do.......

I don't see anything special status-wise about any Saab.....

Hummer? Maybe a bit.....but do people buy Hummers for status or fashion.....or is it just another popular large SUV?

[balthazar]

>>"I don't really see people buying Corvette for status or fashion at all.......people buy it because they respect what the car is and what it can do."<<

You've got to be kidding. For decades, the Corvette has been the poster-car for the Mid-Age Crisis- at least thru the late '70s into the '90s. A sizable chunk of older consumers buy Corvettes and never push their performance capabilities. It absolutely is a status symbol for some.

Reg is right- if you look at a random sampling of bmw drivers'- they're often teen-age girl with phones growing out of the side of their head or bored, middle-aged mail-order housewives.

[ZL-1]

The Dodge-like wheels don't help either.

[Robert Hall]

I don't really see people buying Corvette for status or fashion at all.......people buy it because they respect what the car is and what it can do.......

I don't see anything special status-wise about any Saab.....

Hummer? Maybe a bit.....but do people buy Hummers for status or fashion.....or is it just another popular large SUV?

Saab's appeal has historically been a New England thing, I think...not sure about now, but they used to be very, very common in the Boston area..not sure about now...kind of how Subarus historically have been a New England and Rocky Mountain area phenomenon...

Edited January 19, 2007 by moltar

[Northstar]

I don't really see people buying Corvette for status or fashion at all.......people buy it because they respect what the car is and what it can do.......

I don't see anything special status-wise about any Saab.....

Hummer? Maybe a bit.....but do people buy Hummers for status or fashion.....or is it just another popular large SUV?

You've got to be kidding me about your Corvette statement. People dream about owning a Corvette. They may buy it partly for what it is and what it can do, but they also buy it because they like how it looks and its a CORVETTE.

Saab is nothing special outside of New England, I agree with your statement.

I think Hummer is a status symbol. Why would people drop $55k on what is basically a Tahoe that can only have 6 seats, get's worse gas mileage, handles like complete crap on the road, and really doesn't have anything about it that would make it "better" than a Tahoe other than offroading and being a Hummer.

[Drew Dowdell]

As for the CTS's performance against its direct competitors being an asset, the most recent comparison test I remember seeing showed it placing in 6th place out of 8 cars.

8th: 2005 Saab 9-3 Aero

7th: 2005 Volvo S60R AWD

6th: 2005 Cadillac CTS 3.6 Sport

5th: 2005 Audi A4 3.2 Quattro

4th: 2005 Acura TL

3rd: 2005 Infiniti G35

2nd: 2006 Lexus IS350

1st: 2006 BMW 330i

C&D 35K Sport Sedan Comparison

Every CTS we drive is better than the previous one, which makes us already impatient for this car's replacement.

Oh yeah, smart move citing an article where the 3-series broke down multiple times during the test! I'll take my .5 slower 0-60 time cause it's still faster than the a BMW up on a lift. 99.9% of all the owners of BOTH cars will never be in a situation where the difference in performance matters..

[Drew Dowdell]

Ah, I see what you meant. That's true, but it's also true that now the CTS is competing against an almost brand-new BMW, so I guess both of our points are valid.

6th out of 8 is not good, but the fact that it didn't place last when it clearly had the worst interior, least features, and a higher price than most of them is, because that only leaves handling to make up all the points that it lost on the others. My point was that you wanted evidence that the CTS performed well, and I think this is pretty evident when it has all of those things going against it yet doesn't place last.

They also used a CTS without NAV that was substantially cheaper <more than the cost of NAV> than the "winners". The whole article is flawed and stacked against non-BMWs.

[Drew Dowdell]

Notes from the C&D Review:

Although pricier than the Acura, Infiniti, and Saab, the CTS had the fewest number of features, lacking navigation (the Acura and the Saab have it), a sunroof, a power passenger seat, and a telescoping steering column — all of which are found in the other cars.

Which means you optioned it out wrong. Got my CTS with a sticker of 38k <paid a lot less> with all of that except the telescoping column.

We appreciated the steering-wheel radio controls but would have preferred a simple "seek" button to four individual preset buttons.

So change them. The beauty of the steering wheel controls on the CTS is that they're programmable. I have 1 and 3 set to seek up and down, 2 and 4 change the temperature up and down. I could just as easily set #4 to be Traction control disable..... it only takes a short read of the user manual to figure out.

The BMW review page, they have 2.5 paragraphs out of 5... a full 50% of the space....spent talking about the malfunctions of the car. They weren't even thrilled with the interior, it seemed merely acceptable in their eyes, a/c wasn't strong enough, radio is hard to see, yet it still wins number 1. :rolleyes:

[BigPontiac]

Oh yeah, smart move citing an article where the 3-series broke down multiple times during the test! I'll take my .5 slower 0-60 time cause it's still faster than the a BMW up on a lift. 99.9% of all the owners of BOTH cars will never be in a situation where the difference in performance matters..

Good to see someone who owns a CTS expressing an opinion. Sounds like you did what I did: test drove cars, picked one you liked and voted with your wallet. At the end of the day, that's what matters.

I was surprised when I originally read that C&D article that the BMW placed first with all the issues they had with their particular test car. It actually validated my decision to buy a 2005 model! In their tuner comparison tests, cars with mechanical issues generally earn a DNF (did not finish) rating. However, if you go back through this thread and read all the back and forth, my point in posting it was to illustrate the point of how the CTS has been reviewed against its competition; "performance against it's competition." My original scope was opinions of posters on this board, but that scope was widened to the larger population by VenSeattle, not me. Follow the chain of posts. If you've got a another comparison article that portrays the CTS more positively than C&D did, post it!

That said, assuming the BMW got a free pass, let's eliminate it from the list. The revised ranking would still have the CTS placing 5th out of 8, assuming the BMW got an automatic last place with a DNF award. Would that convey to the readers of the magazine to even put the CTS on their shopping list? Does it help with the perception gap GM is trying to close? Does it help Cadillac make money by selling cars?

[Flybrian]

That said, assuming the BMW got a free pass, let's eliminate it from the list. The revised ranking would still have the CTS placing 5th out of 8, assuming the BMW got an automatic last place with a DNF award. Would that convey to the readers of the magazine to even put the CTS on their shopping list? Does it help with the perception gap GM is trying to close? Does it help Cadillac make money by selling cars?

5th out of 8 isn't an accurate look without knowing the numerical point spread and regardless of what it is, people are either too lazy or too simple to understand what that means.

That's a general comment on the analytical skills of our society.

[BigPontiac]

5th out of 8 isn't an accurate look without knowing the numerical point spread and regardless of what it is, people are either too lazy or too simple to understand what that means.

That's a general comment on the analytical skills of our society.

Here you go: (hopefully the image survives image shack...)

[Northstar]

Hey look, the CTS had the best rear seat space!

The CTS did poorly in interior design, fit and finish, exterior styling, features and amenities, powertrain, all of which have been significantly improved in the new one. The interior is gorgeous, the exterior is amazing, it seems to have tons of new features, and it adds 45+hp. The BMW added 10 points of fun to drive (which should already be counted in the powertrain and chassis perfomance and it sounds like the BMW wasn't driven much ), and gotta-have it factor, which, by the way, adds nothing to how good of a car it is. Take those away and the CTS doesn't lose by nearly as much. I see no reason why the new CTS won't win this comparison.

[Flybrian]

Thank you, BigPontiac. That clears things up more.

I still call B.S. on the 'Gotta-have-it' factor as I did in C&Ds comparo of midsize sedans including the Aura because it represents subjective nameplate affinity crap , but since the spread is consistant in the objective categories, I understand better how it scored.

[BigPontiac]

Hey look, the CTS had the best rear seat space!

The CTS did poorly in interior design, fit and finish, exterior styling, features and amenities, powertrain, all of which have been significantly improved in the new one. The interior is gorgeous, the exterior is amazing, it seems to have tons of new features, and it adds 45+hp. The BMW added 10 points of fun to drive (which should already be counted in the powertrain and chassis perfomance and it sounds like the BMW wasn't driven much ), and gotta-have it factor, which, by the way, adds nothing to how good of a car it is. Take those away and the CTS doesn't lose by nearly as much. I see no reason why the new CTS won't win this comparison.

Whining and bitching about the methodology of the test doesn't help GM sell more CTS's. The market doesn't grade on a curve...

Once the comparisons start with the new models, things should get interesting. What should be more frightening to all the BMW haters is the fact the Lexus placed 2nd on its first time out.

But, in the words of Ricky Bobby -- If you ain't first, you're last!

Edited January 20, 2007 by BigPontiac

[BigPontiac]

Thank you, BigPontiac. That clears things up more.

I still call B.S. on the 'Gotta-have-it' factor as I did in C&Ds comparo of midsize sedans including the Aura because it represents subjective nameplate affinity crap , but since the spread is consistant in the objective categories, I understand better how it scored.

If GM can get the product right the first time, the rest will follow. It's always the small details that add up that kill them. The CTS appears to be their best shot yet at proving they've got their act together. Though strangely, I'm most fascinated by the Chevy Volt!

[Northstar]

Whining and bitching about the methodology of the test doesn't help GM sell more CTS's. The market doesn't grade on a curve...

Once the comparisons start with the new models, things should get interesting. What should be more frightening to all the BMW haters is the fact the Lexus placed 2nd on its first time out.

If the market doesn't grade on a curve, why does the test have one then? All I did was eliminate the curve from the results...

BTW this was Lexus's second attempt.

[BigPontiac]

If the market doesn't grade on a curve, why does the test have one then? All I did was eliminate the curve from the results...

Actually, you're trying to adjust the results...hence ADDING a curve since you perceive GM wasn't treated fairly based upon your personal beliefs. You may feel it's appropriate to cut GM some slack (grade on a curve), but there's a whole bunch of other buyers out there who won't (no curve). GM needs to get to the point where buyers and reviewers say "the CTS is a great car" not "the CTS is a great car...for a Cadillac".

BTW this was Lexus's second attempt.

2nd generation of IS model, yes. I was referring to 1st time in a comparison test against that field of competitors with the 2nd gen model.

[Z-06]

I think BMW's days may be numbered at the number one spot. That gotta have and fun to drive factor from C&D have virtually won or lost each and every comparison tests. Sadness is that it just feels like C&D wants to pitch their winning horse to win my those numbers.

In the old C&D "feel" of the car was unimportant. It was what the car did they stressed on. Putting too much emphasis on the GTH and FTD factors (20% of the total points awarded) is an overkill.

Moreover recently edmunds reported an article about 335 C, which showed that their manufacturer provided testing machine produced more HP and Torque than the off the dealer lot machine. I kinda lost respect for BMW there. I always used to wonder how well BMW did despite their lack of power, but the edmunds test may show not so good side of the Bavarian.

As I had mentioned before if CTS manages to keep the weight under 3600lb we have a winner. Because I am sure if not being the lead among the pack, CTS will not be the slowest. The previous CTS has an amazing chasis, I only expect it to get better with this one. It is a very good balance of luxury and sports and now refinement.

[Northstar]

Actually, you're trying to adjust the results...hence ADDING a curve since you perceive GM wasn't treated fairly based upon your personal beliefs. You may feel it's appropriate to cut GM some slack (grade on a curve), but there's a whole bunch of other buyers out there who won't (no curve). GM needs to get to the point where buyers and reviewers say "the CTS is a great car" not "the CTS is a great car...for a Cadillac".

Like I said before, I don't see how I'm adding the curve, it's C&D that's doing it.

This is how I look at C&D's curve: Take for example a student who gets a B- in a class. He did really well on his midterms but never did homework. The professor decides to make the homework such a small percentage of his grade that it's insignificant, even though originally it was to be 20% of his grade. Making the midterms worth more and homework less bumps him up to a B+. Then, the professors remembers how popular the student is, and how much everyone liked him. He decides to bump his grade up a full letter grade just because he was very popular. The student ends up with an A+ when he really earned a B-. This is what C&D does with their "Fun to drive" and "Gotta-have-it-factor." The fun to drive part is like the professor making the homework worse less; points were already earned for being fun to drive in the performance categories. The Gotta-have-it-factor is just a popularity test. Car X could be the best car in the world, but if for whatever reason no one buys it, it's not very popular. This doesn't take away from how good the car is, which is what comparison tests should be about. Sure, the 3-Series may be the "coolest" in many opinions, but that doesn't make it any better.

Unless buyers are spending $40k on a car because it's popular, or evaluating all of the areas and then deciding that they should decide by which car is the most fun to drive, I don't see how I'm giving GM a curve.

The same thing happened in a GTO vs. Mustang comparo. It was in the 10Best issue, and the GTO won by 9 points (I believe) until the Gotta-have-it factor where the Mustang magically pulls out a 10 point (1 point more than however many it needed) advantage in the Gotta-have-it factor so that C&D doesn't look foolish picking it as a 10Best car. The GTO was the better car, the Mustang was the better seller.

[Northstar]

I think BMW's days may be numbered at the number one spot. That gotta have and fun to drive factor from C&D have virtually won or lost each and every comparison tests. Sadness is that it just feels like C&D wants to pitch their winning horse to win my those numbers.

In the old C&D "feel" of the car was unimportant. It was what the car did they stressed on. Putting too much emphasis on the GTH and FTD factors (20% of the total points awarded) is an overkill.

Moreover recently edmunds reported an article about 335 C, which showed that their manufacturer provided testing machine produced more HP and Torque than the off the dealer lot machine. I kinda lost respect for BMW there. I always used to wonder how well BMW did despite their lack of power, but the edmunds test may show not so good side of the Bavarian.

As I had mentioned before if CTS manages to keep the weight under 3600lb we have a winner. Because I am sure if not being the lead among the pack, CTS will not be the slowest. The previous CTS has an amazing chasis, I only expect it to get better with this one. It is a very good balance of luxury and sports and now refinement.

I couldn't have said it better myself about the GTH and FTD factors. FTD is evaluate in other areas and GTH has nothing to do with how good the car is. If 20% of the test is based on that, only 80% of the test has anything to do with which car is best.

Can you link to this Edmunds test (start a new thread perhaps?)? If it's something relatively minor 5-10 HP, then it's nothing major, at least when you're at the 300+HP mark. I know there have been GTO's with the LS1 that have dynoed anywhere from 290RWHP to over 300RWHP from the factory. The tune on every engine is slightly different and therefore they make slightly different power numbers.

[BigPontiac]

Like I said before, I don't see how I'm adding the curve, it's C&D that's doing it.

This is how I look at C&D's curve: Take for example a student who gets a B- in a class. He did really well on his midterms but never did homework. The professor decides to make the homework such a small percentage of his grade that it's insignificant, even though originally it was to be 20% of his grade. Making the midterms worth more and homework less bumps him up to a B+. Then, the professors remembers how popular the student is, and how much everyone liked him. He decides to bump his grade up a full letter grade just because he was very popular. The student ends up with an A+ when he really earned a B-. This is what C&D does with their "Fun to drive" and "Gotta-have-it-factor." The fun to drive part is like the professor making the homework worse less; points were already earned for being fun to drive in the performance categories. The Gotta-have-it-factor is just a popularity test. Car X could be the best car in the world, but if for whatever reason no one buys it, it's not very popular. This doesn't take away from how good the car is, which is what comparison tests should be about. Sure, the 3-Series may be the "coolest" in many opinions, but that doesn't make it any better.

Unless buyers are spending $40k on a car because it's popular, or evaluating all of the areas and then deciding that they should decide by which car is the most fun to drive, I don't see how I'm giving GM a curve.

Interesting analysis. It still appears you don't agree with their methodology. Their approach looks similar to a Kepner-Tregoe Matrix and you want to re-value some of the weight variables. Getting back to my original statement, I said the market doesn't grade on a curve. C&D isn't the market...the market is our free market economy....who's buying what. The weights C&D assigns for their ratings categories likely represent the opinion of the "dreaded enthusiast" as well as the built up goodwill earned by the Japanese and European manufacturers over the years. And like it or not, that's probably representative of buyers in the North American market...that's the perception gap that GM (and Ford, etc.) needs to overcome. They need to focus getting the product right...under commit and over deliver.

The same thing happened in a GTO vs. Mustang comparo. It was in the 10Best issue, and the GTO won by 9 points (I believe) until the Gotta-have-it factor where the Mustang magically pulls out a 10 point (1 point more than however many it needed) advantage in the Gotta-have-it factor so that C&D doesn't look foolish picking it as a 10Best car. The GTO was the better car, the Mustang was the better seller.

Come on, "everyone" knows people buy the GTO because it has an "adult sized" back seat when compared with the Mustang...

[regfootball]

IMO, the Gotta have it factor is a serious blow to the credibility of C/D. the intent of it is to amplify their own personal bias, rather than relying on the other ratings, which should be comprehensive enough. and, to have a tool to be able to swing comparo results the way the writers want if the numerical scoring doesn't initially pan out in their favor. It's their escape tool.

What makes you 'gotta have' a car?

powertrain?

rear seat comfort? styling?

isn't all that already covered before they do the 'how big was csere's check, er, gotta have it factor'? GTHI factor is redundant and just basically was created to allow bias to enter the occassion. fun to drive could also be considered a cumulative and redundant ranking, but that may be somewhat legit if it is referring to tactile things like the feel of a brake pedal or something.

None of the cars in that test were bad cars so CMON PEOPLE a 6th place car is hardly CRAP compared to the #1 finisher that broke down.

I once tested a CTS and BMW 3 on the same day and preferred the CTS. granted, neither was the sport version, but the cadillac was more exciting.

Edited January 20, 2007 by regfootball

[97regalGS]

C&D gave it 6th place.

Here's a quote from the latest Road&Track (they were comparing G35, TL and IS350

Jim Hall, Senior Editor

"This Japanese trio is very good, but they stil have a little ways to go to unseat the sports-sedan kings, the BMW 3 Series and Cadillac CTS. The Acura held up well against it's newer rivals. And the Infiniti has potential, but its steering is too heavy and the engine lacks grunt. Of the three, the Lexus is my choice, offering outstanding power, a suprisingly sporty chasis and decent steering feel. Let's hope that Lexus goes to bat for enthusiasts and adds a manual transmission for future models."

I, personally, eagerly await the next round of magazine cmparison tests with the 2008 CTS. Curious to see how the rags rate it, and to listen to the never ending banter hear on the boards.

Edited January 20, 2007 by 97regalGS

[Drew Dowdell]

Actually, you're trying to adjust the results...hence ADDING a curve since you perceive GM wasn't treated fairly based upon your personal beliefs. You may feel it's appropriate to cut GM some slack (grade on a curve), but there's a whole bunch of other buyers out there who won't (no curve). GM needs to get to the point where buyers and reviewers say "the CTS is a great car" not "the CTS is a great car...for a Cadillac".

And "The CTS is a great car.... but it's not a BMW" isn't also a curve?

Happens often in reviews.

[Z-06]

I couldn't have said it better myself about the GTH and FTD factors. FTD is evaluate in other areas and GTH has nothing to do with how good the car is. If 20% of the test is based on that, only 80% of the test has anything to do with which car is best.

Can you link to this Edmunds test (start a new thread perhaps?)? If it's something relatively minor 5-10 HP, then it's nothing major, at least when you're at the 300+HP mark. I know there have been GTO's with the LS1 that have dynoed anywhere from 290RWHP to over 300RWHP from the factory. The tune on every engine is slightly different and therefore they make slightly different power numbers.

Here is the link to the test by Edmunds. It is not 5-10 more like 19 HP to the redline, which is quite a significant number.

But yes I absolutely agree, car magazines need to overhaul their "grading" of the vehicle.

Here are the excerpts of the dyno test.

Dyno hum

There can be no doubt that BMW's new twin-turbo 3.0-liter straight-6 engine, complete with direct injection and a high 10.2:1 compression ratio, is impressive. Two smaller snails were assigned to only three cylinders each so they'd spin up faster, reducing lag and increasing torque at low engine speeds. Boy, does it work, as this beastie is rated at 300 hp at 5,800 rpm and 300 pound-feet of torque spreading from 1,400-5,000 rpm. In a rear-drive coupe weighing in at 3,579 as-tested pounds, that sounds about right — for 5.5-second 0-60 bursts, that is.

In order to see what she's really putting out, we've brought our 335i to the chassis dynamometer at MD Automotive in Westminster, California. And since chassis dyno figures are always lower than manufacturer ratings because the former includes drivetrain losses and the latter does not, we've secured the help of an alert reader who has volunteered his month-old 335i for comparison. Steve Harrison's identically equipped 335i automatic is fresh off a trip up the California coast and all broken in. We should be able to tell if our press car's performance is unique or not.

After a short time, two sets of fresh numbers sit before us. Steve's car produces 272 rear-wheel hp at 5,970 rpm. Considering drivetrain losses, he's easily seeing the promised 300 horses at the flywheel, probably more. Our test car produces a similar 273 at 5,970. But wait, there's more: While Steve's motor gently tapers off as rpm exceeds six grand, our mill continues to make more power until it tops out at 279 at 6,295 rpm, at which point Steve's 335i lags 19 ponies behind. Notably, our car maintains its advantage for the remainder of the rev range.

So what's up?

A comparison to BMW data shows that Steve has nothing to be worried about, as his 335i's rear-wheel output curve looks about right when compared to factory flywheel data. Our car is simply stronger in such a way that makes our pavement-melting 4.8-second 0-60 more understandable. But why?

We're glad you asked. MD's dyno can also measure turbo boost during runs. It turns out that at any given rpm in the disputed region between 5,000 and 6,500, our car consistently makes about 0.5 psi more boost. Subtle, but a little goes a long way. Is this mere production variation? We can't dig deep enough to know for sure. If anything, this exercise underscores the potential of aftermarket chip tuning. Ain't electronically controlled turbo engines fun?

For the record, during a desert freeway assault to Vegas at an average speed we don't care to print, the 335i achieved 25.9 mpg, compared to a 29-mpg EPA highway rating. With a lot of city and freeway stop-and-go thrown in, the overall average drops to 20.3 — just above the 20-mpg EPA city rating. With less lead in the shoes, the EPA figures actually seem attainable.

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/...rticleId=117669

Edited January 20, 2007 by smallchevy

[BigPontiac]

And "The CTS is a great car.... but it's not a BMW" isn't also a curve?

Happens often in reviews.

Good, bad or indifferent, the BMW is currently viewed as the benchmark vehicle in this particular segment. When the competition can consistently "Out BMW, BMW" then the target will shift to the new leader. The field has been getting closer and closer in each comparison test and BMW has likely made themselves vulnerable with their styling direction experiment (re: Bangle mangle) as well as their emphasis on technology wizardry. Both have the potential to negatively affect the brand and send buyers to alternative offerings.

[Drew Dowdell]

Good, bad or indifferent, the BMW is currently viewed as the benchmark vehicle in this particular segment. When the competition can consistently "Out BMW, BMW" then the target will shift to the new leader. The field has been getting closer and closer in each comparison test and BMW has likely made themselves vulnerable with their styling direction experiment (re: Bangle mangle) as well as their emphasis on technology wizardry. Both have the potential to negatively affect the brand and send buyers to alternative offerings.

but isn't it a curve? How does BMW getting a pass for major mechanical and electrical failures and still taking first place not indicate a curve?

[BigPontiac]

C&D gave it 6th place.

Here's a quote from the latest Road&Track (they were comparing G35, TL and IS350

Jim Hall, Senior Editor

"This Japanese trio is very good, but they stil have a little ways to go to unseat the sports-sedan kings, the BMW 3 Series and Cadillac CTS. The Acura held up well against it's newer rivals. And the Infiniti has potential, but its steering is too heavy and the engine lacks grunt. Of the three, the Lexus is my choice, offering outstanding power, a suprisingly sporty chasis and decent steering feel. Let's hope that Lexus goes to bat for enthusiasts and adds a manual transmission for future models."

I, personally, eagerly await the next round of magazine cmparison tests with the 2008 CTS. Curious to see how the rags rate it, and to listen to the never ending banter hear on the boards.

I think this is the article you're referencing:

R&T comparo

(sorry, I don't have this magazine to scan for the points breakdown chart this time)

[BigPontiac]

but isn't it a curve? How does BMW getting a pass for major mechanical and electrical failures and still taking first place not indicate a curve?

As I said a few posts ago, I think BMW has built up enough goodwill from prior tests that C&D dismissed all the gremlins as an isolated case with their particular test car. They'd previously tested a BMW 330i before the comparison and it performed fine (and they used it's test results!), so they gave it a pass. Was it fair to give the BMW a pass? I don't think so, no. To me it should have earned a DNF as I stated earlier or they should have gotten a replacement car to compete in the same test for a level playing field.

But they've done that type of thing before. Their longterm tested Cadillac SRX had it's share of problems (stranded them a few times I think), yet they continue to name it to their 5Best Trucks list.

Was their test car just a lemon or does BMW really have quality issues now? I have no idea. My personal experiences with BMW have been good, but I also have the old style "de-bugged" model. The new one could very well have "teething problems." Much like that CTS-V video from Streetfire.net where the guy is beating on his Caddy trying to get home. Is that car representative of all CTS-Vs or was it's engine just assembled on a Fri afternoon after a few beers at lunch...

If I paid my money for C&D's particular BMW or the Streetfire guy's particular CTS-V and had all those problems, I'd wanna lemon law both of them. And it would likely prompt me to switch to a competing brand's vehicle.

[pow]

IMO, the Gotta have it factor is a serious blow to the credibility of C/D. the intent of it is to amplify their own personal bias, rather than relying on the other ratings, which should be comprehensive enough. and, to have a tool to be able to swing comparo results the way the writers want if the numerical scoring doesn't initially pan out in their favor. It's their escape tool.

What makes you 'gotta have' a car?

powertrain?

rear seat comfort? styling?

isn't all that already covered before they do the 'how big was csere's check, er, gotta have it factor'? GTHI factor is redundant and just basically was created to allow bias to enter the occassion. fun to drive could also be considered a cumulative and redundant ranking, but that may be somewhat legit if it is referring to tactile things like the feel of a brake pedal or something.

None of the cars in that test were bad cars so CMON PEOPLE a 6th place car is hardly CRAP compared to the #1 finisher that broke down.

I once tested a CTS and BMW 3 on the same day and preferred the CTS. granted, neither was the sport version, but the cadillac was more exciting.

I preferred their old system which didn't rely on a mathematical scoring system at all. There was one section that graded steering, comfort, brake feel, refinement, build quality, ride, etc, and then an independent final score at the end. First place went to the car they felt was best holistically for the segment. That's how the SRX beat out the Cayenne, FX45, and Touareg, because they justified that even though it had the worst technical performance numbers, the real-world driving experience and practicality mattered more for such an SUV.

That's how their awards (10Best, 5Best trucks, etc) work, and most people seem to be in consensus with those results. Building a car to excel at a formula never works.

Edited January 20, 2007 by empowah

[Drew Dowdell]

Much like that CTS-V video from Streetfire.net where the guy is beating on his Caddy trying to get home. Is that car representative of all CTS-Vs or was it's engine just assembled on a Fri afternoon after a few beers at lunch...

If I paid my money for C&D's particular BMW or the Streetfire guy's particular CTS-V and had all those problems, I'd wanna lemon law both of them. And it would likely prompt me to switch to a competing brand's vehicle.

No.... That guy is an idiot. The car was in limp home mode. If it dies after that, press the little blue Onstar button and have Cadillac come pick it up and give you a loaner... or heck, get an Onstar advisor to do a remote engine diagnostic to see if the car should even be driven at all.

One time, my CTS was running poorly and the check engine light came on. I pressed the blue button, Onstar did a diagnostic, he say there was a low fuel pressure code being thrown. Told me to go check to make sure my gas cap was on all the way. I went and checked and sure enough, I hadn't put the cap on fully.

If you were driving a new M3 around and it was acting like that CTS was....would you keep driving it? Hell no! You'd call BMW roadside assistance. You wouldn't keep beating on the car and recording it for BMW to use against you in court.

[regfootball]

on star rocks

[The O.C.]

You've got to be kidding me about your Corvette statement. People dream about owning a Corvette. They may buy it partly for what it is and what it can do, but they also buy it because they like how it looks and its a CORVETTE.

Saab is nothing special outside of New England, I agree with your statement.

I think Hummer is a status symbol. Why would people drop $55k on what is basically a Tahoe that can only have 6 seats, get's worse gas mileage, handles like complete crap on the road, and really doesn't have anything about it that would make it "better" than a Tahoe other than offroading and being a Hummer.

My comment about Corvette "not" being a status symbol has to be taken in perspective.......sure, my car gets attention when I pull up at the valet......but what about the "guy" that really wants a Corvette, but decides to buy a Boxster or 911 "because" it's a "Porsche....?"

All I meant is that the guys that buy Corvettes are because they are Corvette enthusiasts (I don't think "status symbol" is the same as being an "enthusiast") or they simply see the value in the car versus Porsche, BMW, Benz sportscars....

[The O.C.]

Oh yeah, smart move citing an article where the 3-series broke down multiple times during the test! I'll take my .5 slower 0-60 time cause it's still faster than the a BMW up on a lift. 99.9% of all the owners of BOTH cars will never be in a situation where the difference in performance matters..

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.....

[The O.C.]

They also used a CTS without NAV that was substantially cheaper <more than the cost of NAV> than the "winners". The whole article is flawed and stacked against non-BMWs.

Ahhh......but good ole GM won't let us get NAV in a CTS with the top (V6) suspension/chassis/Sport package.....

My car's MSRP was about $41,000 loaded.....a comparable BWM is about $45,000 (new one WITH the twin-turbo I6.)

[The O.C.]

Notes from the C&D Review:

Which means you optioned it out wrong. Got my CTS with a sticker of 38k <paid a lot less> with all of that except the telescoping column.

C'mon Oldsmoboi.....

C&D gets what GM supplies to them. SOME butthead at GM figured they would spec out a CTS Sport press car with a severe lack of luxury options.....it's not C&D's fault the car was underspec'd.....