I now see the point about the STS

[LosAngeles]

It WAS built to compete with the luxury intermediates (GS, M, 5-series, E-class, A6) I guess I was just emotionally taking up the CTS's cause as being the intermediate Caddy. But unfortunately an STS that's only five inches longer, yet cuts a bit of a similar presence to the M and the GS kinda steps on the CTS's toes in Cadillac's lineup. And them you have the BLS in Europe, further making the CTS look kinda weird. In basic, as far as the CTS goes, I'm left feeling like the name should basically be killed off in favor of a new rear-drive compact Caddy that can line up against the G, C-class, and dreaded 3-series. What also complicated matters for me is the fact that Caddy is not properly replacing its DTS with a big car that can actually compete, which left me in my mind thinking the STS was meant to fill that role (that is, until I sat in one, and also really analyzed it up close, before turning eyes toward the GS and the M, then back to the STS) So basically, I'm left cold, looking at a 2006 Caddy lineup that is: -A BLS that, in all reality, probably really IS unnecessary, and should have been a Buick instead. -A CTS that's too big to compete with anything smaller than the G35, but is knocked out of the intermediate category by the STS. -The STS as the intermediate that packs an evil interior that renders it basically better off being a personal car -A DTS that hasn't kept up with current Caddy technology, therefore coming off as a basic-by-comparison senior citizen's car, a glorified Buick (maybe the name dies in three years) -Lacking in engines that the overcompensation-minded luxury buyers really need to step to the S-classes and 7-series of the world (V-10, V-12, anything) Anyway, all that being said, I would love to get my hands on an STS of some sort, find a GS, 5-series, or M on the freeway, and have a real duel. However, when a replacement finally comes, the STS should be only 195 inches, taller by an inch in the rear of the cabin, slightly lower in suspension geometry, and with Displacement On Demand on every engine offered.

[Carguy]

GM should do the CTS were it can take the 4.6L NS V8 as an opt. over the 3.6L V6 and drop the 2.8L V6. Then build a larger 5.6L 380HP NS V8 to use as an opt. on the STS over the 4.6L and give it a longer sharper angeled 67 Eldorado looking rear overhang and 120in weelbase. Keep the CTS as MORE CAR FOR THE $$$$ over the compatition and do a KAPPA based ATS cpe.sdn. line with the 2.8L V6 sta. and the 3.6L V6 opt.

[balthazar]

>>CTS... too big to compete with anything smaller than the G35...<<

For crap's sake can we get over this splitting of hairs on the overall length issue? CTS is 191" long, which is a mere 5" longer than the TL & G35. The very same TL & G35 are 10" longer than the IS300 and 325- are they likewise "too big to compete"?? Should they shrink also... or should the 325 & IS be stretched? The A4 is only 179"- too short to be competitive also? Why not average the lengths of all of these and mandate all future redesigns be within 2" of that average?

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE INCH RANGE OF "COMPETITIVENESS" IN THIS SEGMENT?? Oh yea- there is no such thing. No one ever shops for cars with a tape measure!

>>Lacking in engines that the overcompensation-minded luxury buyers really need to step to the S-classes and 7-series of the world (V-10, V-12, anything<<
I agree: I would like to see a 'multi-cylinder' engine from Cadillac again, but at the same time the cars mentioned seem to be (from casual observation) 90% V-8s

[LosAngeles]

>>CTS... too big to compete with anything smaller than the G35...<<

For crap's sake can we get over this splitting of hairs on the overall length issue? CTS is 191" long, which is a mere 5" longer than the TL & G35. The very same TL & G35 are 10" longer than the IS300 and 325- are they likewise "too big to compete"?? Should they shrink also... or should the 325 & IS be stretched? The A4 is only 179"- too short to be competitive also? Why not average the lengths of all of these and mandate all future redesigns be within 2" of that average?

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE INCH RANGE OF "COMPETITIVENESS" IN THIS SEGMENT?? Oh yea- there is no such thing. No one ever shops for cars with a tape measure!

[post="491"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

When thinking in terms of building world beaters, dimensions do have to be taken into account, unfortunately. This is a huge deal in countries like Italy or Japan, where parking is a huge concern.

[balthazar]

So no cars over 186" are sold & parked in these countries? Nothing over entry level from mercedes, bmw, audi, etc, etc? (BTW: I have never seen 'parkability' claims in any advertising/marketing/ journalism; you'd think if it was so incredibly important, we might.) Were we only talking about parking issues abroad; what's the deal in the U.S.?

I am not attacking you, LA; a number of people have expressed this (doesn't prove its valid), but not a one has been able to concretely explain why only the CTS in this segment is out of step & uncompetitive, yet those much smaller than the mid 180"ers aren't too small, nor if the mid 170"ers have some sort of competitive advantage.

I mean we're not talking 18" of difference, only 5. No one can look at a half-dozen cars individually and tell you exactly how long each is. In other words, how can this matter if it's indiscernable?

[chrominium steel]

I think that the cts should be dropped because it is too cheap to fit the new Cadillac upscale image. Maybe Saab should replace the cts. Cadillac shoudn't sell any car that costs less than $45000

[Sixty8panther]

I agree, no one and I mean NO ONE! ever once at the daelership talked/discused or quetsioned a car's size category, lenght or interior volume... they're useless facts. Car buying is still mostly an emotional purchase. Well maybe not a Camry or Accord but a CTS/G35/M45/GS/540 and the such are cars bought based on test drives, styling, comfort, luxury and performance figures. If I could afford a CTS-V my only question would be can I fit Sofia's baby seat in the back? Yes? Okay who do I write the check out to? As far as a No* powered CTS... sure it's a great idea and I hope they do it but I want a Pushrod LS series engine in the CTS-V. Makes spanking bimmers, thrashing 911s and embarasing M3s that much more satisying while keeping maintenace and cost low while keeping performance and durrability high!

[sciguy_0504]

When I think of entry-level, I think of the A4, C class, 3 series, CTS, IS, G, 9-3 and the upcoming Zephyr. For the intermediate level, I think of the A6, E class, 5 series, STS, GS, M, 9-5 and the LS. Caddy needs the ULS in order to compete with the high-end cars from the various manufacturers. I think the next-gen CTS should be a little bit smaller and use space more efficiently. Edit: BTW, the local dealer conglomerate (Peruzzi) is opening a new Caddy dealership within the next year or so. I can't wait. Edited August 19, 2005 by sciguy_0504

[CaddyXLR-V]

I would like to see the CTS get smaller, mostly for handling benefits and weight reduction benefits. That people do shop for, even if they dont shop with a tape measure.

[The O.C.]

I would like to see the CTS get smaller, mostly for handling benefits and weight reduction benefits. That people do shop for, even if they dont shop with a tape measure.

[post="678"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree....one of the reasons I LIKE the 3-series is the fact that I can get the performance, ride, handling, and luxury in a smaller package! BMW has done an astute job of designing a smaller sedan that has amazing room inside (if you are prepared to sacrifice some rear seat space by moving the seat back.)

My boyfriend is 6' tall....but has long legs for his height....and he can get more comfortable in a smaller 3-series than he could the CTS we test drove....he couldn't move the CTS' seat far enough back....and ended up with bent knees against the lower dash of the CTS.

I just prefer smaller cars myself....and many other people do too...

[balthazar]

Interior room is a whole 'nuther issue, and I agree: more is better. But the exterior issue I just don't see.

[LosAngeles]

Wouldn't you agree that length, width, height, track, and wheelbase make cars feel different when it comes to handling?

[ToneyTone]

Looking at the huge difference between the current and last gen STS, I think Caddy did a hell of a job. With the updated versions of both the CTS and STS right around the corner, I think Caddy will definitely split up this pair. You will probably see a CTS with the same size interior but a much smaller exterior. With the STS I think the wheels are going to be set farther apart and the design to be much more aggressive. But really when you look at how far caddy has come in the last couple of years you have nonthing to complain about.

[Drew Dowdell]

I find the size of the CTS to be "just right" for me, that's why I bought one. The STS could have been a lil larger in the back seat area. I don't want something the size and weight of a Civic in a luxury sport sedan. I barely consider the 3-series, 9-3, or G35 in the luxury catagory anyway.

[balthazar]

Wouldn't you agree that length, width, height, track, and wheelbase make cars feel different when it comes to handling?

Theoretically, it can but in reality, it guarantees nothing. All those dimensions are exactly the same between a CTS and a CTS-V yet there is a handling difference. And how many smaller cars does the 'uncompetitively-large' CTS-V outhandle?
IMHO, I still think you place way too much emphasis on this matter, LA; emphasis NOT echoed by the buyer.

[Flybrian]

I agree with Balthazar. I don't understand how a few inches either way can render a car the general size of the CTS as decidedly uncompetitive. The size argument made sense with the last Seville which was simply too goddamn big to be carving it out with 5ers and the like. Speaking personally, I don't feel near as comfortable in a 3er as I do in a CTS - this applies for the driver, passenger, and rear seats.

[LosAngeles]

I agree with Balthazar. I don't understand how a few inches either way can render a car the general size of the CTS as decidedly uncompetitive.

The size argument made sense with the last Seville which was simply too goddamn big to be carving it out with 5ers and the like.

Speaking personally, I don't feel near as comfortable in a 3er as I do in a CTS - this applies for the driver, passenger, and rear seats.

[post="13195"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, I wasn't the first one aiming it squarely at four-door BMWs...here, I was just making a case where I can see both the CTS and STS trying to ride the same track in the lineup, to the point one can derail the other.

[pow]

Well, I wasn't the first one aiming it squarely at four-door BMWs...here, I was just making a case where I can see both the CTS and STS trying to ride the same track in the lineup, to the point one can derail the other.

[post="13232"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Pretty much my sentiments... the CTS and STS seem to have the same amount of interior room; the primary difference between the two cars is quality. To be competitive in this segment, the CTS needs at least the STS's quality... but wait, why would anyone buy a similarly-sized STS then? Cadillac didn't go far enough with the STS, IMO, leaving a difficult dilema for GM -- how good should they make the CTS, without cannabalizing the STS? In this situation, making the CTS smaller makes the most sense.

[Drew Dowdell]

Pretty much my sentiments... the CTS and STS seem to have the same amount of interior room; the primary difference between the two cars is quality. To be competitive in this segment, the CTS needs at least the STS's quality... but wait, why would anyone buy a similarly-sized STS then? Cadillac didn't go far enough with the STS, IMO, leaving a difficult dilema for GM -- how good should they make the CTS, without cannabalizing the STS? In this situation, making the CTS smaller makes the most sense.

[post="13352"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

AWD
Northstar
Satilite NAV

[CaddyXLR-V]

I would actually like the CTS more if it was a little smaller, and available as a coupe. Well, I'd like it with the Northstar too. I dont really like big cars too much. But thats just me.

[Dsuupr]

I think a V12 product is needed for Cadillac. I also understand GMs stance on the rebuild. I hope GM doesn't build little cheap cars like Mercedes and BMW. That'll only kill the brand in the long run.

[jrockb4]

GM could use more uncompetitive cars like the CTS. Sales are up almost every month, and it has increased sales every year in a segment that Caddy had only the valiant attempt at an entry-level luxury car and Catera in previously. If this is failure or uncompetitive, then keep it up. While August was an off month, up 10% for the year in it's fourth year on the market is pretty successful in my book (43k+ through August). On top of that the STS sold as many cars in August as the Seville sold in the first 8 months of 2004. Now, I am not saying the CTS is perfect and could not use some tweaking. But it is very competitive in the market place for a one body style lineup (no coupe, no convertible or wagon). Who would have ever thought that the Deville could be off 20% for the year and that Cadillac's cars would still be up 22% for the year!!!!!!!!!!! I think the question should be ' how do you make a very good thing great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?'

[Drew Dowdell]

If only all of GM's divisions had the "problems" that Cadillac has.