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 38 Posts

·
Registered
none
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, newbie to the forum here.
We have a 2009 E350 Benz AWD. Love the build quality and handling ... hate the GPS/sound system user interface. It sucks!

As an engine design engineer, I'm very impressed with the new SIDI engine. When the decision was made to use a 7.7mm chain pitch rather than 9.5mm version, you can be sure that the powertrain engineers did a ton of validation testing to confirm the durability. I am just as sure that then some purchasing weenie sourced the chain from a third world country .... hence the problems I've been reading about. I hope GM is doing the right thing and going back to a decent chain for the warranty repairs. Anybody know if the 2011 models have put this problem behind us?

Speaking of the GPS, how would you rate it compared to a late-model portable Garmin? I assume it is touch screen? How often do updates come out and how much do they cost?

I've been comparing the Luxury vs Premium trim packages. For us, the Luxury, but with Nav would satisfy our needs (I think). Looks like the ultrasonic rear park assist only comes with the Premium. Is it really needed when you already have the rear camera?

Is the 3.0L engine the same architecture as the 3.6L? Same direct FI, just less displacement and power? Or have I missed something?

Hope to join you all in ownership soon. What kind of incentives is Cadillac offering these days? Good financing? Any "capture bonus" for trading from a competitor vehicle?

Ken
 

·
Registered
2016 ATS Coupe 2.0T RWD Lux Black/Black
Joined
·
98 Posts
I don't know the answers to all your questions, but as someone who recently traded in a (much beloved) Lexus for a CTS, I think you'd be happy with one. The GPS system in the CTS is touch screen and also has voice commands (which I haven't mastered yet). Don't know how it compares to Garmin, etc., but I'd say it's at least as satisfactory as the one in my '06 Lexus, and it seems easier to find destinations when you don't have complete address or name information. (Also, with OnStar subscription, you can get an OnStar rep to find and download a destination. I haven't had much experience with this yet, so can't say how well it works.)

When I bought last month Cadillac was offering 1.9% financing, which was sweet. They didn't give me any kind of bonus for the fact that I was trading in a competitor Lexus, but I did wonder if that was part of the calculus they used to determine I was "qualified" for the financing deal.
 

·
Registered
none
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Well, I did find an answer to one of my questions ... the 3.0L engine is of the same family as the 3.6L. But, interestingly both the bore & stroke were changed. The bore/stroke ratio is almost identical. That sort of makes sense since the direct fuel injection targeting is very sensitive to the cylinder geometry near TDC. The fuel plumes are guided by the features in the piston crown (it is not simple flat top) so "scaling" the cylinder geometry would be the lowest effort solution to recalibration.

SAE paper 2008-01-0132 is a good resource regarding the 3.6L.

Ken
 

·
Registered
none
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Local dealer has a 2010 (listed as new) CTS Premium RWD for $50,465. What's a more realistic price for a carryover?

Ken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,297 Posts
If it helps, you could not pay me to drive a MB, so I say dump it only as soon as possible for the CTS. The main reason I got rid of my CTS is it was way too luxurious for me. So coming from an MB, I am willing to bet you will be right at home in the CTS. Good luck!
 

·
Registered
CTS, 2010 awd
Joined
·
64 Posts
I'm going to go against the flow here. I'm decidedly unimpressed with my '10 CTS4. I came from a German car ('06 Passat Fourmotion) and got the CTS with AWD and the 3.6 engine. For the most part, they're about the same size, but even with the performance package, the CTS just doesn't handle as well as my old one. Slower off the line, slower 0-60, and slower in the 1/4, and the CTS doesn't corner nearly as well. Plus, I dropped from 24 mpg average down to under 18.

The CTS is a nice ride, for sure, and I really like the styling and the comfort, but when it comes ready to go to another vehicle in a couple years, I'm pretty sure I'll be looking at an Audi A6 or A8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,297 Posts
Your Passat was 1000 lbs lighter. No car can beat the laws of physics.

As disappointed as I was with the steering in the CTS4, Audi is even worse.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac
Joined
·
2 Posts
As a design engineer myself, keep the MB. I would still be driving mine except the wife totaled it. Now back to Deville as soon as I fix the head gasket. Cad should be ashamed of not fixing this sooner.
 

·
Registered
CTS, 2010 awd
Joined
·
64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,297 Posts
so I rounded up. sue me. not sure where your research skills come from.

since I KNOW FOR A FACT a CTS4 is close to 4100 lbs, the published numbers attached are obviously for their 2wd counterparts.

It is still a difference of 600 lbs. I don't know how physics work where you live, but where I live, 600lbs is a significant difference; to acceleration, handling, and economy. Believe me, I am no fan of the CTS' obesity, but furthermore, the CTS has a 7" longer wheelbase. That is even more significant. The longer your wheelbase, the more rotational inertia your car has to fight. The payback though, is less fore-aft weight transfer (meaning a better ride) and more interior volume.

Still more, I have driven a Passat. "Drivers Wanted" my ass.
 

·
Registered
CTS, 2010 awd
Joined
·
64 Posts
so I rounded up. sue me. not sure where your research skills come from.

since I KNOW FOR A FACT a CTS4 is close to 4100 lbs, the published numbers attached are obviously for their 2wd counterparts.

It is still a difference of 600 lbs. I don't know how physics work where you live, but where I live, 600lbs is a significant difference; to acceleration, handling, and economy. Believe me, I am no fan of the CTS' obesity, but furthermore, the CTS has a 7" longer wheelbase. That is even more significant. The longer your wheelbase, the more rotational inertia your car has to fight. The payback though, is less fore-aft weight transfer (meaning a better ride) and more interior volume.

Still more, I have driven a Passat. "Drivers Wanted" my ass.

Wow, forget to take your Midol today? Every other site, including VW's, shows the Passat at around 3,800 pounds. I'm not sure where KBB gets the 3,289 figure from. It's possibly they transposed a couple numbers. (Edmund's list the Passt Fourmotion at 3,829) Edmund's also lists the CTS 4 at 4,118 pounds.

Your point about the wheelbase is pretty valid, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,297 Posts
Sorry. I have this thing against German cars in all their forms :D Don't know why. Maybe it was my Jetta that went to the dealer 5 times in 11 months.

If the passat is that much, then it's even more obese than the CTS. fwiw, among the things I liked better about my 06 CTS vs my 09, was its much, much lighter weight.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top