Croc

You know, "carbon fiber" and shiny black plastic is fine for DRIVING EXCITEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, but in the luxury class there should be more--real metal trim, or some sporty wood--like that grey wood Cadillac used? That was nice.

That's gotta sting.

So why doesn't Cadillac replace the transmission? I don't think they are unable to produce an 8-speed, but I do think the cost cutter culture still reigns supreme, and I'm sure they believe that a 6-speed is "good enough." And here in lies what holds Cadillac back. That "it's good enough" mentality of GM that works for Chevy doesn't work for Cadillac. Agreed. Cadillac really needs to up its mpg game.

That's liquefaction. Can be extremely destructive.

OK. Honestly, I was hoping there'd be some kind of mpg trade-off involved, because both engines get pretty bad mileage...worse than my Shortstar.

Oh look, a rear center armrest.

According to the Cadillac website, the 3.0 and 3.6 engines get identical mileage (18/26) in AWD and RWD configurations (I find that slightly suspect), but offer slightly different power outputs. Can someone please enlighten me on what meaningful differences exist between these two engines? If fuel economy is the same, why would one choose one engine over the other?

I don't disagree with that, necessarily...but that comes down to what is the CTS coupe? Is it a luxury performance car, or a performance luxury car? Because with Mercedes puts luxury first. AUDI puts luxury first. BMW has a pretty even balance between the two. GM wants everyone to consider Cadillac in the same breath as the Germans, but yet they simply do not compete properly. By that I mean, "the CTS competes with the 5er, but for the price of a 3er!!" Well...not really. As GM learned early on, consumers demanded a better interior that actually competed with the 5er. No one compared it to the 3er because the 3er is markedly smaller. The CTS compares with the 5er most directly...except it didn't initially with price and amenities. And GM can make excuses all they want. They apparently didn't think the CTS coupe would sell so well? Really? After seeing the strong reaction to the concept, after poring over all the available sales data of their competitors, after establishing that yes, this is a viable market, and after the strong positive response from the unveiling of the finalized design pre-production showcar...they didn't think it would be popular? GM needs to examine their market forecasting team then...unless it's all really just a lame excuse.

No, I do want one...once the interior refresh actually occurs. At launch, whichever GM/Cadillac spokesperson said an updated interior was coming "in 18 months" but clearly that's been delayed. Even better would be a diesel engine. At this point, I'm going to have to wait at least until the ATS comes out, so my next car should be one of those two, likely depending on available powertrains and mpg numbers.

Please show me where I said anything about cupholders. Also, please show me where I said I'm judging this solely on the interior? I'm glad it drives well, but we all know that's only part of the equation. Look at Volkswagen--they sell so many poorly-built cars solely because their interiors have the appearance of being really, really high-quality. My criticisms are: 1) Cheaper interior materials (specifically certain plastics) than sedan and wagon variants, 2) lack of rear center armrest (at minimum)/full rear console (ideal) since it's only a 2+2 and 3) a rear interior that is markedly downmarket in styling, quality of materials and amenities from the sedan and wagon variants as well as what's in its own front interior. None of those criticisms are unreasonable considering this is a luxury car, a luxury car that is an "image car" for Cadillac and is driving showroom traffic. My criticisms are NO DIFFERENT than one criticizing the XLR for not having a class-competitive interior or an interior befitting a $90,000 luxury car back in its day... "But no one buys it for the interior!" Maybe, but at least in the case of the XLR they certainly didn't buy it because of the interior being so crude relative to its class. Seriously, just because YOU don't care about the rear seat doesn't mean it should be exempt from my criticism--it's a feature of the car. If the interior didn't matter, it would just be a 2-seater. Similarly, just because you would never buy this car with an automatic transmission doesn't mean a deficient slushbox should be immune to criticism.

Sorry I must have forgotten what site I'm on.

I'd replace the backseat w/ a flat carpeted area w/ a bar to attach dog seat belts/harnesses to... I'd find that far more useful. I don't even like having rear seat passengers particularly, and their comfort would not be part of any purchase decision I'd ever make. You aren't really a fan of other people in general, are you? That's why you live as far out as you do, that's why you like having so much space between you and your neighbors, and why you wouldn't ever consider rear seat accommodations--because you don't really do much with groups of people...right? A lot of people, myself included, often drive with nearly full cars because my friends and I socialize a lot. Plus, let's be honest--if a group of people are going to carpool to something fun, wouldn't you WANT to take the coolest-looking car? I want a car that can do it all and be the best at everything--if my passengers complain, I'm not happy. I'd also never buy a car with a rear seat I wouldn't want to spend any time in. ...or I just don't use, or much value, backseats in general. What a tirade of assumptions. ...no? I was asking a series of questions, trying to better understand where you're coming from...hence the question marks. I mean, you've made it clear in many other threads over a period of several years that you like living in a rural/exurb area because you don't like close proximity to neighbors (ocnblu's threads about his noisy neighbors, the thread about density in Los Angeles, others) and you just said you don't like having rear seat passengers...so I don't think I was being terribly unreasonable by asking if you're just not that big on being around people in general for whatever reason.

1. Mid-twenties 2. We are an environmentally-aware group...i.e. we might go slightly out of our way but won't grossly inconvenience ourselves 3. We never fill the rear middle seat if we can help it because we need our rearview mirrors 4. HOV lanes on the freeways often move significantly faster when available

Good, at least it'll be getting one. Remember, there was supposed to be an interior refresh for 2012 that was announced at the Coupe's launch. Cadillac knew it was barely class-competitive even back in 2010. Those are a bunch of excuses that doesn't really explain anything adequately. If GM was trying to cut costs and just get the thing to market, then why not keep costs down by re-using the CTS sedan's rear bench? It seats 3 and has an armrest. I really, really have a hard time believing that it just cost so much to put even a fixed armrest back there that it would have killed the project and forced GM to raise the MSRP so much that no one would ever buy it. Also, I'm not taking it personally that you don't put people in the back seat--you're the one rolling your eyes and telling me I should pray for Jesus to buy me a Mercedes because I find fault with the rear seat--that kind of attitude is just completely unprofessional and inappropriate given that I was criticizing GM and the car, not you. You're making it personal, when I'm just faulting the car. Maybe you'll understand better if you and Albert ever decide to settle down or even maybe adopt--but you shouldn't have to sacrifice fun for practicality. I can drive 55 in a CTS coupe, but I can't fling an Enclave around the twisties.

I'd replace the backseat w/ a flat carpeted area w/ a bar to attach dog seat belts/harnesses to... I'd find that far more useful. I don't even like having rear seat passengers particularly, and their comfort would not be part of any purchase decision I'd ever make. You aren't really a fan of other people in general, are you? That's why you live as far out as you do, that's why you like having so much space between you and your neighbors, and why you wouldn't ever consider rear seat accommodations--because you don't really do much with groups of people...right? A lot of people, myself included, often drive with nearly full cars because my friends and I socialize a lot. Plus, let's be honest--if a group of people are going to carpool to something fun, wouldn't you WANT to take the coolest-looking car? I want a car that can do it all and be the best at everything--if my passengers complain, I'm not happy. I'd also never buy a car with a rear seat I wouldn't want to spend any time in. Interesting...over the years, when I go out w/ groups of friends 95% of the time it's in separate cars...meet up at a house, restaurant, ball game, movie, whatever.. Rarely carpooling..if we did that, then it's whoever has the biggest SUV that does the hauling..(or that rare bodystyle, a wagon--some of my closest friends have wagons--one couple has a Volvo XC70 and a BMW 5-series wagon). Well we'd all go out and meet at places too if it were practical, but honestly parking is expensive in Los Angeles, and it doesn't make sense for 12 people to drive themselves and pay $5.50 each for mandatory valet when many of us live close enough to each other. And while SUVs are great and all, I don't know anyone who drives one these days...and again, if we're meeting up for dinner on La Cienega, we'd rather be seen arriving in a sick-looking coupe than a red Prius.

Roll your princess eyes all you want, but I've complained about this on all CTS Coupe trims since release. It is inexcusable for a luxury car to lack a rear armrest if it has a rear seat. I also don't care WHAT they use as trim as long as there is SOMETHING in the rear seat. Again, it's a luxury car--there shouldn't be a huge disconnect between the front and rear halves of the interior. When your $50,000 car only has a cheap hunk of metallic plastic for "trim" in the rear, you have a problem. Then Croc, ask the Lord to buy you a Mercedes-Benz. It's a free country. I prefer the vast performance advantages over the other German coupes. It's just going to be Albert and I 99.9% of the time... I really don't care what my backpack thinks of the back seat. If you're so concerned about back seat luxury and comfort in your high end sports car, maybe you can petition Buick to make you an Enclave GS. Why can't I have both? ANSWER ME THIS: WHY do the CTS sedan and CTS wagon have substantially more luxurious rear accommodations than the CTS coupe?? PLEASE tell me in what world that makes sense. And no, I won't just go and buy a Mercedes-Benz because I don't care for them and I support American businesses and workers, anyway. Why should I have to settle? Cadillac wants to play with the big boys, then they're getting judged with the big boys. Honestly, why are you throwing so much attitude at me and taking MY criticisms of the interior (which are clearly shared by a couple posters) so goddamn personally? You turning into some kind of fanboi??

First glance at the grille made me think "Honda Civic."

I'd replace the backseat w/ a flat carpeted area w/ a bar to attach dog seat belts/harnesses to... I'd find that far more useful. I don't even like having rear seat passengers particularly, and their comfort would not be part of any purchase decision I'd ever make. You aren't really a fan of other people in general, are you? That's why you live as far out as you do, that's why you like having so much space between you and your neighbors, and why you wouldn't ever consider rear seat accommodations--because you don't really do much with groups of people...right? A lot of people, myself included, often drive with nearly full cars because my friends and I socialize a lot. Plus, let's be honest--if a group of people are going to carpool to something fun, wouldn't you WANT to take the coolest-looking car? I want a car that can do it all and be the best at everything--if my passengers complain, I'm not happy. I'd also never buy a car with a rear seat I wouldn't want to spend any time in.

Roll your princess eyes all you want, but I've complained about this on all CTS Coupe trims since release. It is inexcusable for a luxury car to lack a rear armrest if it has a rear seat. I also don't care WHAT they use as trim as long as there is SOMETHING in the rear seat. Again, it's a luxury car--there shouldn't be a huge disconnect between the front and rear halves of the interior. When your $50,000 car only has a cheap hunk of metallic plastic for "trim" in the rear, you have a problem.

Nonsense. If a CTS-v buyer is concerned about the back seat, they will buy the sedan or wagon. Performance coupe buyers don't care about the backseat....when I had my M3 coupe, the backseat was rarely ever used..when I needed to haul friends or family, I took my Jeep. Please. This is a luxury car buyer, and not an inexpensive one at that. If we were talking about a Pontiac or Camaro I'd be inclined to agree with you--but looking at the competition, the CTS coupe falls short. Please note that these gripes don't exist in the sedan or wagon...but the coupe, the most expensive model, has the least luxurious interior. Not good. Still haven't given me an excuse as to why there isn't an armrest or proper console in the rear seat of a luxury 2+2. And in the regular CTS coupe there isn't any wood in the rear, even though there is up front--all the rear gets is that metallic plastic, and a big hunk of it at that.

I found nothing lacking about the rear seat accommodations other then ingress and egress mostly because I was too lazy to wait for the power seat to move forward. I was perfectly comfortable in the back for a while until Doane started driving. The M3 - smaller and not as powerful, just barely as fast The M6 - bigger rear seat, not as powerful, not as fast, $45k more. The C63 AMG - no coupe yet, not nearly as powerful, not as fast, rear seat is a foam slab. The E63 AMG - no coupe, not as powerful, not as fast, $20k more The E550 coupe - Only 382 Horspower?, not as fast, but yea, the rear seat is bigger The Audi S5 - 200hp deficit, 225 lb-ft of torque deficit (and the peak is within 200rpm of each other), but yeah, the rear seat is bigger. Are you kidding me?? The rear seat's lack of a center armrest and proper console (it is, after all, only a 4-seater) is pretty glaring for the price range, and the low quality plastics and lack of wood/brightwork make it a very stark place to be. Clearly Cadillac forgot that some of its buyers do indeed have friends, and may not necessarily want a 4-door.

But the interior--particularly the rear seat accommodations--is very lacking, a generation and a half behind. Unacceptable. Until an interior refresh comes along, I wouldn't consider one of these, nor would I recommend them to anyone. BMW, Mercedes and AUDI do better.

I'm taller than you and had no problem in the back of a Regal. I also don't slouch.

Excellent advice. My friend, also with Progressive, did the same thing when her Prius got totaled and got a lot of extra $$$ to buy an upgrade Prius (newer, fewer miles, more stuff, HOV sticker and red instead of blue).

Where's reg with his Aztek purchase story?