Well I really hope those last two things aren't true. Interior size is the same as the current CTS even though GM increased the exterior size to line up with the E class and 5 Series? Hope not. And that it's falling apart on the assembly line? Hopefully we're still talking pre production. The ones that'll be crash tested, automotive media tested, etc. First gen II CTS with the 3.6L DI engine had some pretty major issue with the engine that was corrected in 2010. Pretty major I think. Hopefully there's nothing like that. Of course on the first model year of a new car we unfortunately "expect" some issues.
Thanks for the link. On the forum there's a link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb8uLMX1H4s where cars.com talks about the car. One thing mentioned is the CTS's length is up by 5 inches, but the wheelbase is only up by 1. When I saw that I remembered something I read about the new CTS last week that said that most of the increased length went to rear overhang. And on the link to the forum you sent, one guy mentions something about the trunk being bigger so that seems to be the culprit. Almost half a foot longer overall, only an inch between the wheels, so the 4 remaining inches presumably is aft of the rear axle. I guess that's why the rear legroom isn't anything to write home about. Funny thing is the ATS gets a lot of complaints from automotive media for its lack of legroom in the back relative to its competitors. Only thing is the trunk space is still tiny relative to its competitors because of packaging issues with the rear suspension. Maybe the packaging of the rear suspension was an issue on the CTS as well (it does share the same chassis as the ATS) and so they tried to make up for it by adding 4 inches of rear overhang. I guess a tiny (10 cu in) trunk in the ATS, a small sports sedan, is an annoyance, but a tiny trunk on a midsize to large sedan is unacceptable. I'm giving GM the benefit of the doubt here. I personally think that if you increase the overall length of the car, the length between the wheels needs to increase proportionately, or MORE so than the overall length did. Bottom line is it looks like if rear legroom is a big deal for someone, the 2014 CTS aint the car for them. That's too bad. Can't win em all I guess.
Agreed, but also those dimensions make it look like the interior is no (or not anything that counts) bigger at all. I'll check them out when my dealer gets them for sure, but I can't see getting one if it's smaller than what I have.
I find it interesting that the Vsport is only available in rear-wheel drive but the same engine will be offered in the XTS which is either front wheel drive or rear wheel drive. I'm assuming Cadillac doesn't plan to offer a 400+ HP front wheel drive vehicle...
Yeah I read it was not going to have as much power in the XTS. I also read that the CTS with the TTv6 will eventually be offered with AWD. And yeah carter I looked at interior dimensions of our car vs the CTS, and its a considerable difference. Exterior, very close though. We're still a little bigger overall. For being so close in exterior dimensions, we're far in interior. Too bad we're not as light as the CTS.