Cadillac Owners Forum banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this month's Ride of the Month Challenge!

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey there everyone.....this is my first post even though I have been lurking for a long long time now. I usually look around on the STS board myself but my brother is looking at a few CTS's which I know nothing about.

The first he is looking at is an '03 Garnet Red with 3.2L with 41k miles for $12,000.

The second is an '07 Silver with 2.8L and 57k miles for $17,000.

Both are before a small trade in value for his 92 Cadi with 64K miles on it

My question is to all of the CTS pros on here, which is the better car? I realize you haven't looked over them yourself or test driven them. They are being sold at the local Chevy/Cadi dealer.

Is there something certain the 07 has that is an upgrade over the 03 because all I see right now is an 03 with a slightly more powerful engine at least in terms of HP.

Any small bits of info you can give me/him would be great. I just don't want him to buy the wrong vehicle.

Thanks for your help and I'm glad I finally posted.

Peja
 

·
Registered
2003 CTS "Ebony Maria" 2005 Cadillac STS "Grace"
Joined
·
6,414 Posts
he will be much happier in a STS if he wants the classic Caddy ride...the CTS is a bit more stiffer and feels nothing like the classic caddy feel. between the two cars you mentioned, both have issues but most issues can be down by him if he has any mechanic skill. the 03 has a timing belt and the Crankshaft Position Sensor (CPS) is known to go out. the 07 has a timing chain and they are known to go bad. the 2.8L is easily modifiable with aftermarket parts, whereas the 3.2 has little to no aftermarket parts. the mileage seems good for both cars, obviously the 03 has great miles. my only problem with the 03 you listed, is they want to much money for the car...
 

·
Registered
2006 STS V8 1SF RWD
Joined
·
6,496 Posts
Yeah, if he is used to that floaty Cadillac ride and wants to still have that he won't like a CTS. I went from a 2001 Seville STS with 232k with the original suspension to my new to me 2004 CTS with FE3 suspension. The STS still had some of its "float" left in her and I can definitely notice a HUGE difference. Don't get me wrong, I love the CTS, it's way more fun to drive, but it sure doesn't feel like a Cadillac suspension wise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the reply everyone. I have let him know and now he is looking into a few STS's. He is more a family man, so I am not sure if he will want a the sporty feel. I also like the floaty feel......just seems like a nicer, more luxurious ride.

Thanks again!!
 

·
Registered
2013 Acura ILX / 2011 Camaro LS
Joined
·
1,007 Posts
Both are decent cars, the 07 is 4 years newer though so I'd prob jump on that. Each has it lil problems etc. Yeah like everyone else said have him test drove the car first, CTS does not ride smooth like the big body cars. He would prob prefer a v6 STS, you can get one with decent miles around the 17k range. My CTS with FE1 and aftermarket 18" wheels ride's worse then my wifes Kia lol.
 

·
Registered
2006 STS V8 1SF RWD
Joined
·
6,496 Posts
I test drove a 2006 STS(57k) before I bought my CTS. Actually felt very similar in ride quality. Much firmer than previous Cadillacs.
 

·
Registered
2006 3.6-Volant CAI, V-exhaust, LED swap, Clear DRL, 6000k
Joined
·
1,698 Posts
the CTS and STS both ride on the Sigma platform and share the same architecture so the ride should be close as long as suspension and components are comparable.
 

·
Registered
2007 CTS 2.8L
Joined
·
291 Posts
both cars are over priced....I just bought a 2007 CTS 2.8L with 64k miles for $14,500 out the door, and can find them all day at that price. There really is no difference between the two years, I used to own a 2004 but it had the 3.6L and was a good car as is my 2007. The transmission on the 2007 has the triptronic which is fun at times.
 

·
Registered
2004 CTS 3.6 Black on Black 1SC
Joined
·
493 Posts
In addition to the tips already added - Have him shop a little more - He really should not settle for anything less than the 3.6 motor in my opinion. He can easily find a car in the range you listed above with similiar miles and the bigger motor, I have driven CTS cars with all 3 motors, there is NO comparision...

2.8 = 210 HP / 195 lbs torque
3.2 = 220 HP / 218 lbs torque
3.6 = 255 HP / 252 lbs torque

No hit on anyone else with the 2.8 or 3.2 .....But think about all the silly questions asked on this board about trying to squeeze 10 HP from an x-pipe or a cold air intake...Even if you could get that from both those mods, you would still be short on Hp compared to the stock 3.6 motor.
 

·
Registered
2006 CTS-V
Joined
·
4,969 Posts
Bleh on all the 3.6 talk. I've run my 3.2 better then some 3.6s, compared to others on dragtimes. Either way, I've only got intake and exhaust. If you are looking to juice things up, get a V. There's no real difference between them except the tiptronic. The prices on both are too high, but if I had to pick one, I'd pick the 03 because its been used less.

All the CTS's regardless of year have the #1 issue, which is the radiator / transmission cooler line connector. The #2 issue which can be a big PITA is the timing chain, which only exists in the 2.8 and 3.6. The 3.2 has the valve covers and the PCV.

If you want to solidify the 3.2 CTS for years to come, get a cheap 3.2 with low mileage, get the PCV TSB done, and get an external trans cooler.
If you want to solidify the 2.8, get the ECU reflash for the timing chain, and then get the timing chain re-done.. and then get an external trans cooler.

Both would be good cars, and there isn't a giant difference in performance from the 2.8 to the 3.6 unless its at highway speeds IMO. Low end can be fixed by less restrictive exhaust, intake, tire size and weight, etc.


17k for an 07 CTS 2.8 with 57k miles... Thats about 19k a year.
For about 1.5k more... You can get:
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.j...e=b&num_records=100&cardist=29&standard=false

05 CTS-V with 49k miles on it. My biggest mistake was buying a V6 CTS when i really wanted a V8 one. I'll be fixing that mistake soon enough, once I get my certs.
 

·
Registered
2006 STS V8 1SF RWD
Joined
·
6,496 Posts
I paid 13.5 for my 2004 CTS 3.6L with 46k on it
 

·
Registered
2004 CTS 3.6 Black on Black 1SC
Joined
·
493 Posts
Bleh on all the 3.6 talk. I've run my 3.2 better then some 3.6s... and there isn't a giant difference in performance from the 2.8 to the 3.6 unless its at highway speeds IMO. Low end can be fixed by weight, tire size and weight, etc.

Nice try, a half second faster from zero to 60 is significant over the 3.2, unless of course you got the one and only super duper 3.2...

And no giant difference over the 2.8? Motor trend has the 2.8 car 1.7 seconds slower to 60 than the 3.6, almost the same gap as the 3.6 versus the V for crying out loud - fix that low end, maybe you can pull all the seats and the spare tire out..

Cadillac CTS 2.8L V6 VVT
0-60 mph 8.2 sec
1/4 mile 15.8 sec @ 88.2 mph

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0509_2005_cadillac_cts/specs_price.html#ixzz1EkjxfNm9
 

·
Registered
2006 3.6-Volant CAI, V-exhaust, LED swap, Clear DRL, 6000k
Joined
·
1,698 Posts
the 3.6 really is that much faster over the 2.8, i jumped in a 2.8 then 3.6 right after one another and after that comparison i didnt even consider the 2.8 when i was shopping. as soon as i saw that single exhaust outlet i didnt look for anything else.
i think in a car our size and class 300-330HP is good for daily driving. yea the 3.6 doesnt even get us close to my ideal power range but im still happy with the 265-270ish im getting from mine. why settle for less when there is no downside to the 3.6 compared to the 2.8 (well maybe price slightly).
 

·
Registered
2006 CTS-V
Joined
·
4,969 Posts
Bleh on all the 3.6 talk. I've run my 3.2 better then some 3.6s... and there isn't a giant difference in performance from the 2.8 to the 3.6 unless its at highway speeds IMO. Low end can be fixed by weight, tire size and weight, etc.

Nice try, a half second faster from zero to 60 is significant over the 3.2, unless of course you got the one and only super duper 3.2...

And no giant difference over the 2.8? Motor trend has the 2.8 car 1.7 seconds slower to 60 than the 3.6, almost the same gap as the 3.6 versus the V for crying out loud - fix that low end, maybe you can pull all the seats and the spare tire out..

Cadillac CTS 2.8L V6 VVT
0-60 mph 8.2 sec
1/4 mile 15.8 sec @ 88.2 mph

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0509_2005_cadillac_cts/specs_price.html#ixzz1EkjxfNm9
[edit]
I'm going to edit this post and clean it up.

I'd like to see your 0-60, and then I'll put up a 0-60 of 6.7 in my 3.2 on a solid straight road. How about it? Like I had stated, its not a giant difference. Is it a difference, yes? Can it be made up with the same money you'd spend extra to buy the 3.6? yes.... does it matter? no. Get the V or stay in the V6 group. Guaranteed an 04+ maxima will still walk us both. So why the hostility? The comparison was the 07 2.8 and the 03 3.2. In this comparison, the 03 is used much less and has less mileage per year and I think, background check included, if everything pans out. It would be the better ride.

There really isn't a giant difference, regardless of what motortrend, insideline, and everyone else says. I've seen 3.6 run 14.9, 14.8 all day. SvB had ran his 3.6 at 14.6 was his best time. I've run a 14.9 the 2nd time I ever went to the track in my life. Thats less then half a second. Both were modified with intake and exhaust. Thats all I got. idk what else Svb may have had. I've got nothing against it, but its a V6 fight, and its not worth all that much. That kind of time % can be changed by drivers on the track. The same thing you said about how funny it is to see all these X pipe squeezing 10hp nonsense, is the same way the CTS-V guys look at this forum.
 

·
Registered
2004 CTS 3.6 Black on Black 1SC
Joined
·
493 Posts
The point is, the gentleman was looking for advice for his brother on buying a V6 CTS and I think he should look a little more - There is not one person in this world that would not get the 3.6 car now knowing the positive changes that were made to get this car close to where it needs to be power wise in the V6 category - Anyone who has the 3.2 or 2.8 and says if they could do it all over again for the same price and NOT get the 3.6 are kidding themselves. The cars are in the same exact price range with either motor. (35 HP and 34lbs tq - 16% increase in any class is a ton)

Search CTS articles on line for the gen1 yeaars and see how many articles come up discussing how under powered the cars were until the got smart and put the 3.6 in them to correct the weak power to weight ratio.

2005 Nissan Maxima ratings. ... test SE with automatic transmission did 7.1 sec 0-60 mph - Close, but not quite...And lovin the feel of the front wheel drive....

Anyway - I know all about the V's. I just went through 6 months of test driving the hell out of everyone I could find that was clean enough for my liking, and ultimately decided on going with a Mercedes C350 Sport, just made more sense at this point...

We can agree to disagree if you like, but the facts are clear as day.
 

·
Registered
CTS
Joined
·
80 Posts
literally traded in my 03 for an 07 last month...

my 03 only had 68K and was giving me electric problems (that seems to be common in the years 03-05)

2003 was the first year the CTS debuted so there are bugs

if he can shell out the extra cash, id def take an 07
 

·
Registered
2006 CTS-V
Joined
·
4,969 Posts
He was looking for adviced on buying a USED CTS... and the 03 has less mileage, is possibly still under warranty, and has less mileage per year as opposed to the 07. Yeah, the 07 is newer, but it has more mileage and more mileage per year, so its been run and used more. Its also above 50k miles, so its most likely out of warranty. So assuming both of these cars fly on the VIN check, 1 owner, etc, I'd get the 03. Still.

If I could do it all over again, I'd get the V, not another V6. Timing chain issues are more expensive in the 3.6 and 2.8 then anything I've run into on the 3.2. And they are real frequent.

I just wouldn't believe all the facts from websites. Take it to the track and then see what all the other guys are running. They had the 3.2 at 15.7, and I've run .8 of a second better on my 2nd run ever. But depending where or what website you go, they had the 3.2 at 15.1. They got the 3.6 at 14.9 and I've seen guys running 15s in them. It happens. On the street, there's no giant difference in them. And I guarantee a Maxima will give you a run, regardless of whats written on a website. They are geared better for highway as well. Same like a G35 from 03+ will still walk you.

[FACT]
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0303_v6_sedan_comparison/verdict.html
04 Maxima SE 0-60 6.3, quarter mile in 14.8

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0308_2004_cadillac_cts/index.html
04 CTS 3.6 0-60 6.4, quarter mile in 14.9

Its the view of alot of people, including people who went from 3.6 to 3.2/2.8, that there isn't a big difference. The guy who is looking for the car, who is looking for a comfortable 4 door cruiser, will not care much between either. Better buy in this list, after being overlooked, would be the 03 CTS IMO. Again, my opinion. Performance isn't that different. If you are looking for performance, you can get the V. Thats what I plan to do. I like the CAI and the sound of the exhaust, but I know its not bolting on a million horsepower. And saying how funny it is to see the 2.8 and 3.2 guys lookin for horsepower... its just as funny to see you 3.6 guys lookin for horsepower, when there's a V with 400 of them. Come on now.

You can believe what you want. I'll agree to disagree, and note the facts.

[back to topic]
Either is fine. Just always get the one with the warranty, with less mileage (yearly and overall), the one with the least amount of owners, with the most amount of service records, and within a good pricing. Neither of those are within a good pricing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,630 Posts
That Maxima had a manual trans. At least find a 3.6L with 6spd for a somewhat fair comparison. As far as Maxima vs CTS, theyre very close. A w-body Buick Lacrosse Super would take both in a straight line. Does it really matter?
Theres little real world difference between the 3.2L and 3.6L, but you cant expect much from 35 hp in a 3600 lb car. There are benefits to getting a later year, tho. The available LSD, optional appearance package, revised interior with nicer trim, and addition of lumbar support were nice extras.
 

·
Registered
03 CTS 3.2L (Sold) / 09 CBR 600rr /2014 GMC Sierra
Joined
·
7,872 Posts
My CTS with FE1 and aftermarket 18" wheels ride's worse then my wifes Kia lol.
thats hard to believe...LoL

Bleh on all the 3.6 talk. I've run my 3.2 better then some 3.6s, compared to others on dragtimes. Either way, I've only got intake and exhaust. If you are looking to juice things up, get a V. There's no real difference between them except the tiptronic. The prices on both are too high, but if I had to pick one, I'd pick the 03 because its been used less.

All the CTS's regardless of year have the #1 issue, which is the radiator / transmission cooler line connector. The #2 issue which can be a big PITA is the timing chain, which only exists in the 2.8 and 3.6. The 3.2 has the valve covers and the PCV.

If you want to solidify the 3.2 CTS for years to come, get a cheap 3.2 with low mileage, get the PCV TSB done, and get an external trans cooler.
If you want to solidify the 2.8, get the ECU reflash for the timing chain, and then get the timing chain re-done.. and then get an external trans cooler.

Both would be good cars, and there isn't a giant difference in performance from the 2.8 to the 3.6 unless its at highway speeds IMO. Low end can be fixed by less restrictive exhaust, intake, tire size and weight, etc.


17k for an 07 CTS 2.8 with 57k miles... Thats about 19k a year.
For about 1.5k more... You can get:
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.j...e=b&num_records=100&cardist=29&standard=false

05 CTS-V with 49k miles on it. My biggest mistake was buying a V6 CTS when i really wanted a V8 one. I'll be fixing that mistake soon enough, once I get my certs.
ill have to agree, im very happy with my 03, i almost bought a 04 3.6 but at the time it was 10km less and 6grand more...
if i didnt have my 03 right now i would be looking at CTS-V or STS4 or STS-V but ive had it 3 years and its treated me very well..but it is white diamond, and there is nothing stronger than a diamond :)

The point is, the gentleman was looking for advice for his brother on buying a V6 CTS and I think he should look a little more - There is not one person in this world that would not get the 3.6 car now knowing the positive changes that were made to get this car close to where it needs to be power wise in the V6 category - Anyone who has the 3.2 or 2.8 and says if they could do it all over again for the same price and NOT get the 3.6 are kidding themselves. The cars are in the same exact price range with either motor. (35 HP and 34lbs tq - 16% increase in any class is a ton)

Search CTS articles on line for the gen1 yeaars and see how many articles come up discussing how under powered the cars were until the got smart and put the 3.6 in them to correct the weak power to weight ratio.
i dont think i would buy the 3.6 because of the timing chain issue...for me its my 3.2 CTS or the V, otherwise i would be looking at the N* STS, ya the N* drinks oil but its more reliable.

literally traded in my 03 for an 07 last month...

my 03 only had 68K and was giving me electric problems (that seems to be common in the years 03-05)

2003 was the first year the CTS debuted so there are bugs

if he can shell out the extra cash, id def take an 07
mostly trim issues, trunk bezle and stuff like that...few features not aviable but i think the engine is more reliable, with the exception of the CPS and leaky valve covers, but neither of those issues are even close to the timing chain issue.

those 2 CTS's listed are overpriced, i paid 13,900 or something like that 3 years ago for my 03 and it had 113km on it (70 mi or so)
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top