Another Disappointing '08 CTS Drive

[b4z]

At the risk of piling on I thought I would share my impressions of the '08 Enterpise rental car I drove while my '07 SRX was in the shop for a Ultraview alignment, broken upper glovebox, rearend recall and dead battery + key fob reprogram.

Got a 4700 mile goldish colored CTS with black interior.
First the good:
Great interior, probably the best Caddy has ever done.
Car was quiet and had a solid European feel when on the interstate.
Heavy and solid feeling with only a few creaks.
If the DIC was correct gas mileage was averaging over 20mpg which is about 5 mpg more than the SRX.
Quicker than the SRX, I am guessing 0-60 in the 6.5-6.8 second range.
Strong off the line, and kicked down extremely well at interstate speeds.
6 speed is probably a big factor here.

Now the not so good.
I am very tall(6'8') and can usually fold myself up into any car, but had a few gripes.
My knees blocked the temp guage. Didn't even know it was there until my passenger told me. Vent was cooling my knees, I turned it almost off.
I need a little more knee space.
Large gap between the dash and door window sills. My SRX's is much tighter. Front seats are not as comfortable as the SRX's or old CTS's.
Had a little bit of lower back discomfort.
Major blind spot on the Cpillar. Car really has a coupe profile, almost identical in back window rake to my GTO. Poor visibibity for back seat passengers when looking out the back door windows. Low headroom for backseat passengers.
Rear window visibility is awful also.
I think the upcoming CTS wagon is going to be a visibility nightmare.

Clip clop front suspension. Lots of clunking going on over small bumps. Rear suspension would clunk sometimes also. I wonder if the GM Intermediate Steering Shaft issue has reared it's ugly head again.

The engine could be smoother at higher rpms.

I am starting to think GM is having problems with execution. They just can't seem to hit a home run.

While this car is better than the first gen, it's got some serious space issues that are not appropriate for a mid sized sedan, much less a American sedan.
It is 5 series sized, but not 5 series sized inside.

Caddy needs to make a decision about form over function.
I don't think this car does what it is supposed to do for Caddy. I think if they had given it a few degrees more upright c pillar and half an inch more headroom most of my negatives would go away.

In some respects I think some of the car mags were too kind to the new CTS.
The G8 appeals to me a bit more, even though there are some obvious shortcuts in the interior materials.

[The Tony Show]

A beat up rental car is not a good way to judge build quality or squeaks/rattles.

[Zymurgy]

Well, the BMW website only gives very limited interior dimensions (only front and rear headroom). The 528i has .3" more front headroom (39.1" vs 38.8"). Backseat headroom the BMW has almost 1" more headroom (38.1" vs 37.2").

Lower back discomfort... Did you adjust the lumbar support?

Comparing the drive train, the BMW puts out a paltry 230hp and 200 lb273-ft of torque and requires PREMIUM gas. The non-DI CTS puts out 263hp and 253 lb-ft of torque. The DI version puts out 304hp and 273 lb-ft of torque. Both are recommended to run on REGULAR octane gas.

As for suspension, the CTS has three different suspensions available, so who knows what you drove.

[like2drive]

Originally Posted by The Tony Show

A beat up rental car is not a good way to judge build quality or squeaks/rattles.

I agree with Tony on this. How many people have driven this car before you? That's certainly a factor to take into account. A lot of freaks have pure pleasure to just "abuse" rental cars.

[rsingl]

I believe that the CTS is actually targeting the 3 series and not the 5 series market segment. If you go to the 5 series then the starting MSRP for the most basic model is at the upper range of a loaded CTS and it is also a different size segment.

[b4z]

GM is the only car company I now that can build cars that are big and long but have less interior room than their smaller competition.
Lot of elements going on with the CTS's form factor. Low windshield header, ultraview tracks intruding, extreme rake of back window, extra tiny back doors and windows, low initial roof height combined with a rearward sloping roof line, etc.
This is a car that has a 113.9" wheelbase but has the interior size of car with a 109-110" wheelbase. The sloping rear window is solely to blame for that.
They made the decision to design a visually stunning car, but there are many ergonomic and space issues present.

Another probelm for me was that even though I had the steering wheel tilted all the way up and all the way out my hand rubbed on my leg as I turned the wheel. I've never seen that before, except in my sister's '84 Honda Accord. I think the curve in the knee area of the lower dash and the radio area is too limiting. Very jaguar like. Would like to see a little more room to splay my legs out.

Anyway, maybe they can redesign the interior on a MCE, but if I'm not a customer they want, thats okay too. There are other GM cars I can buy.
I'd be all over a G8 Sportwagon as a replacment for the SRX.

[Nancy116]

I believe that the CTS is actually targeting the 3 series and not the 5 series market segment. If you go to the 5 series then the starting MSRP for the most basic model is at the upper range of a loaded CTS and it is also a different size segment.

I dunno....I always think of the 3-Series as more for the "young folks" (i.e., yuppies in their 20's and 30's). I thought the CTS was supposed to appeal to the 40-50'ish crowd who would logically be moving into the 5-Series, but suddenly discover they can get a comparable luxury vehicle for a lot less money. Aren't the guys in the Kate Walsh commercial driving a 5? I also thought the 3 was a lot smaller than the CTS (but I have no actual data on this).

[muschany]

I don't think that we should expect a mass produced car to fit a person who is 6'8" tall.

[RustedElvis]

Originally Posted by muschany

I don't think that we should expect a mass produced car to fit a person who is 6'8" tall.

Maybe a DTS or a Lincoln Towncar?

[greyghost04]

I can't believe b4z drove the same car I own. Everytime I drive my CTS it is an incredible drive. Everything works to give me a smooth ride with lots of handling thrown in, not to mention plenty of power. All the electronics work. I'm 6'2 and fit so perfectly in the seat. The lumbar adjust feels so good on my lower back. The seats are not too hard. I'm in my 50's and have only owned new cars since 1974. This car has been my absolute favorite and I've had every type there is on the market over the years. b4z I can see you been on this board for a long time, but are you selling Acura's or Infiniti's. Come on, be truthful.

[Nancy116]

Do you guys think the difference in "ride quality" from the various posters is the 17" v. 18" wheels, or the sport suspension v. regular suspension? I am still confused with the different "F" packages, so I don't know if you can get 18's without the sport suspension. I do know that my '05 has 17" wheels and the ride is gorgeous. And I've heard that the bigger the wheels, the less "cushiony" the ride is. (But to me, there is just no question -- wheels are a priority with me....the 18's weren't available back in '05 except for the V, or I would've gotten them then.) Just wondering if that stuff could account for the differences of opinion.

[Pyromaniac]

i agree with the blind spot in the front, as well as the rear having limited visibility, but hey, I guess that's the price you pay for a car that looks stunning.

[jjsC6]

I don't get all the confusion over whether its a "3" or "5" series BMW competitor. It's priced like the 3, not the 5. A comparable 5 series is $10,000 more. That's pretty staight forward to me. I realize that not all purchases are price driven, but I think it's pretty safe to say that price range is the main driver the defines what cars people consider when looking for a new car.

[b4z]

greyghost04,

Nope. GM man through and through.
2 time SRX owner and thread starter on the SRX registry.

Caddy made the new CTS a few inches wider and more STS sized but it has a coupe like close coupled interior. Like the Aurora. Physically bigger than the Intrigue but not any more room inside.

I never said I couldn't fit in it. I could probably drive that car on a 500 mile trip and other than some lower back issues for a few hours after driving, I'd be fine.

We are talking degrees here. A quarter inch more room here and half inch more room there would do it.

It's okay iof the car is not for me. I may still take a look at the CTS-V but I think the G8 GXP will be more my speed.

Enjoy your CTSs. One of Caddy's best efforts so far.

[b4z]

I'm assuming the car was a base car and 17" wheels.

Didn't have a problem with the ride quality or the seat hardness at all.
Ride quality was very good/excellent, but the front suspension clunked over rippled pavement.
car was very quiet. No wind noise to speak off. Signficantly quieter than my SRX.
And there was something making noise in the rear. Might have been something loose in the trunk.