GM listens! Many changes for 2004, most very welcome. Update: CTSv also reviewed
Written: Aug 01 '03 (Updated Jun 22 '05)
Product Rating:
Pros: Distinctive styling, acceleration, handling, more refined and luxurious with the 2004 refinements
Cons: A bit less fun for 2004 (except CTSv), price keeps going up; CTSv shifter, ride
The Bottom Line: Most buyers will appreciate the revised car’s more luxurious feel. I’m less positive about the shift in the CTS’s character, but still highly recommend it.
Note: My review of the CTSv follows my review of the 3.6.
For decades, Cadillac was the leading seller of luxury cars in North America. Its lead began to slip when its cars were downsized in the 1980s, turning off the brand’s traditional customers, and the new designs failed to win over new customers. In subsequent attempts to appeal to both old and new customers, it became unclear what a Cadillac was anymore. A couple of years ago, Cadillac finally lost its lead position, and fell not only a notch or two but all the way to fifth. It has become questionable whether Cadillac, which sells nearly all of its cars in the U.S., can even afford to compete with companies like Mercedes and BMW. These German companies sell a substantial number of cars in every major market worldwide, and thus have far more sales to fund the development of new technologies and models.
In what might be a final test of the brand’s viability, General Motors has committed billions of dollars to the development of a new line of Cadillacs that it hopes will meet with worldwide success. The first car in this new line-up, the CTS, went on sale in January of 2002 as an early 2003 model. Sales have been fairly strong, especially for a GM car, so Cadillac’s new look and chassis appear to be successful. (My review of the 2003 can be found here.)
In the past GM would have taken this success as a sign that no money needed to be spent to respond to consumer complaints. Not so this time. For the CTS’s second model year, which also began early, GM has responded to consumer and press feedback with a number of changes.
Some of these changes were planned: the automatic CTS receives an all-new 255-horsepower 3.6-liter V6. (The manual CTS has to spend another year with the old engine, a 220-horsepower 3.2-liter V6.) The new six’s significance extends beyond the CTS: it is the first in an entire family of new V6 engines that will power many future GM vehicles.
Others were not planned. In addition to the new engine, the wheels, suspension tuning, sound insulation, instruments, seats, and option packaging have been tweaked. GM is actually listening!
Other changes are coming. For 2005 the materials in the CTS’s interior will be upgraded. Since the new engine will also be available with a manual then, I look for to reviewing that car. For now, how does the 2004 stack up?
Cadillac CTS Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Cadillac CTS rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Exterior Styling
Realizing the dire nature of Cadillac’s situation, GM has cast caution to the winds with the CTS. It has forgone the safe route in favor of a design that makes a strong statement and that cannot fail to be noticed. For inspiration it returned to a source from the past, one that reflects American strength and international leadership: fighter aircraft. This does not mean a return of the scoops and fins of the fifties. Retro may be hot right now, but there is nothing even remotely retro about the new Cadillac design, except perhaps on a meta level in terms of the source of inspiration. GM wanted a design that reflected the future, not the past, and no aircraft looks more futuristic or makes a stronger design statement than the F-117 “stealth” fighter—even though this aircraft does not actually represent the future of fighter design as second generation stealth designs are much more streamlined. The F-117’s sharply intersecting planes and awkward, even jarring proportions have been effectively translated into automotive form with the new CTS. Few will find the resulting design beautiful, but many will nevertheless be attracted to the strength of the statement it makes if my father and I are any indication.
I personally applaud the marketing guts this design required. Many buyers in this market segment are women. The CTS’s predecessor, the Catera, was actually aimed at women. Women tend to prefer smooth, organic forms. For this reason, I suspect many will dislike the look of the CTS. As a rule, fighter-plane-based styling is masculine, even when based of streamlined aeronautical designs. The “stealth fighter” look of the CTS, with its rejection of harmony and smooth surface transitions, takes this to the extreme. This is easily the most masculine luxury sedan design on the road today. It is the un-Jaguar at a time when even formerly angular BMW has gone smooth and round. GM’s gamble is that enough people will be attracted by the distinct look that it will not matter that many potential buyers will be turned off by it.
In my 2003 review I ventured, “I believe this gamble will pay off. My main concern is that this theme may not age well, and that in a couple of years it may look hopelessly dated. If this concerns you, lease it.” At this point I seem correct on both counts. The CTS has sold well, but judging from recent discussions I’ve had about the car seems to be aging quickly.
In lighter colors, the CTS’s flat surfaces can look a bit plain. The CTS in the ads is silver, a poor choice. This car looks much better in the darker colors.
A final note on the exterior styling: like the Audi A6 and many other current designs, the new CTS is a tall car. (To read my reviews of related vehicles, click on the blue hyperlinks.) Unlike most others, however, the angular styling of the CTS not only does not strive to hide this, but accentuates it. As a result, the standard 16” wheels (unchanged for 2004) look undersized. The 17" wheels are a new design for 2004. They look good on the car, unlike some of GM's other recent wheel designs (2003 DeVille, 2004 Grand Prix Comp G). With much thinner spokes, they look larger than the 2003’s 17s (borrowed from the Seville), and thus further minimize the visual mass of the bodysides. The new wheels look less sporty but more elegant to me.
Part way through the 2004 model year the A6-style clear lens license plate surround was ditched in favor of a body-color piece. A major improvement in my view, as I have always disliked this styling detail on both cars.
Interior Styling
Quite often when a car’s exterior design is radical the interior styling remains quite conventional. After all, the interior is much more “in the owner’s face.” It’s much more important that people feel comfortable with it. In a similar fashion, homes that often appear radical from the outside are traditionally furnished. It’s public face vs. living space.
Cadillac has not taken this route. Unlike, say, the Audi A6, the interior is just as radical as the exterior, in terms of both style and materials. Much of the dash and door panels are covered with soft-touch vinyl that possesses a unique cross-hatch texture. The center stack of the dash, styled to resemble a tower-style PC, is very prominent. It stands very tall, and protrudes a few inches from the rest of the dash, with a bit of a cant toward the driver. Some front passengers will find it overly obtrusive. As with the exterior, contrasts are sharp and sharp edges abound. Again, the intent is to appear futuristic, and again the styling succeeds on this count. Once again, few will find it beautiful, but no one will find it common or boring, and many will be attracted by the strength and distinctiveness of the statement being made. You know you are in a unique car based on what you can see from the driver’s seat.
Gauges are one of the things I pay a great deal of attention to. The CTS’s are almost perfect. The gauge graphics strongly resemble those of the Chevrolet Corvette. The unique font borrowed from the Corvette is refreshing. Too many cars, even too many luxury cars, use a plain, boring font. The original Infiniti Q45 broke with this un-fashion, and this was one of the things I especially liked about that car. But when that car failed, Nissan figured that everything about it failed, and chucked this inexpensive means of lending a car character. In the CTS’s case, the use of Corvette-style gauge graphics successfully communicates that this truly is a serious driver’s car.
Frankly, the entire interior is making this statement. As a unit it looks and feels, with its cockpit ambiance, purposeful and serious. More so than that of any current BMW sedan, this interior oozes sportiness far more than it does luxury. In fact, my father and I agreed that it did not really feel luxurious at all—and that we did not care. Like I said, GM is taking some risks with this car. They have consciously designed an interior for a car in the near-luxury segment that does not look or feel particularly luxurious, gambling that the strong statement being made will win more sales than it loses. Remember, people only buy a car if it’s their favorite. A car that manages to be everyone’s #2 sells to no one. Better to be #1 for 20% of the market and #10 for the rest.
I had one major issue with the original instruments: instead of a temperature gauge, useful for assessing when the engine is warm enough to push it a bit without shortening its life, Cadillac included an unattractive analog clock. This baffled me for a number of reasons. Above all, a clock does not warrant such a prominent location in a serious driver’s car. That review continued: “I implore Cadillac to make a quick and easy running change to the car. Put the temperature gauge back… Make the clock digital, and put it somewhere else, anywhere else.” Well, late in the 2003 GM did this.
GM cars are often criticized for interior materials that look and feel cheap. Overall the CTS does okay if not stellar here. My father, a Lexus owner, did not think anything looked or felt cheap. (The Lincoln LS interior did not fare nearly as well in his evaluation.) All of the surfaces on the dash and doors are soft-touch vinyl—none of the hard stuff. That said, the pebbly-surfaced vinyl on the doors looks like it is hard plastic, even though it is not. (A similar material is on the doors in the Saturn VUE.) This is a first for me, a material that looks hard but is soft. Usually it’s the other way around. Either way, I don't like the look of these door panels, and suspect they will be part of the upgraded interior coming next year.
In the 2004 CTS I drove the bottom half of the armrest is a cheap, hard plastic that needs to be more firmly attached to the console. Armrests should not wobble, especially not in $40,000 cars.
A final note on perceived quality: The doors do not make a high-quality sound when closing. They sound much like those on any other GM product. Given all of the attention given this factor in the industry press for the past two decades, you would think GM’s engineers would do something to match the Europeans in this area.
Accommodations
When I first saw photos of the CTS months ago, I noted the height of the hood and front fenders, and feared that this would result in a poor driving position, one in which the driver felt buried in the car. Gladly, this is not quite the case. Although I would personally like a lower cowl and beltline (base of windshield and side windows), with the seat raised a touch the driving position is passable. I can see out well enough to feel connected with what was going on, and do not feel buried in the car.
The largest issue with the driving position for many people will probably be the tilt wheel. Unlike others in this class, this tilt wheel is manually adjusted in steps. The problem with this is that for many people none of the detents will be “just right.” For my father and me, the second lowest was too low, while the one above it was a bit high. Pay attention to this during the test drive.
The front seats are both comfortable and supportive. They are firm without being hard, and the bolsters are shaped and spaced such that they should hold both narrow and wide bodies in place. In hard driving I slide a touch, but never feel like I’m pushing through the bolster.
I had no issues with the 2003 non-adjustable lumbar support. The seat fit my back well. Other people, however, complained. For 2004 both front seats have adjustable lumbar. Alas, it still is not the fabulous four-way adjustable lumbar (up and down as well as in and out) found in many GM vehicles with lower price tags. Maybe it’ll be four-way next year? I know, I know, I didn’t even feel the need for a two-way adjustment, but four-way is mighty nice.
Although the CTS is not a small car, being roughly the size of an Audi A6, BMW 5-Series,or Lexus GS, due to the interior styling it does feel tighter inside than the specifications suggest. Overall this is a good tight (at least for the driver), one that again communicates that this is a driver’s car, one that makes you feel connected to the machine.
There are, however, some instances of bad tight. For example, when someone is seated in the front passenger’s seat the glove compartment only opens an inch or so before hitting them in the shins. This makes it awkward and just downright difficult to use. Could GM really not package the passenger side of the dash more efficiently? This issue aside, interior storage space in the glove compartment and center console is passable, but not great.
The center console storage does not include a power outlet so a phone can be stored in it plugged in, a feature he appreciates in his Lexus GS. Cadillac, unlike BMW and Mercedes, also does not offer an integrated phone that can be used with the provider of your choice. The integrated phone, which appears to be analog, only works with On-Star, and its calling plans are very expensive.
The second instance of “bad tight” concerns rear seat room. Although the seat itself is well-shaped and comfortable, at least for two people, there is not much room for knees or heads. People taller than me (5-9) will have to scrunch a bit. I was a bit surprised by this, given the car’s long wheelbase and generous height.
At 12.8 cubic feet, the trunk is not large, but it is usefully shaped, and the hinges are of the fancy, non-luggage-crunching variety. A fold-down rear seat is a $300 option. I wish the size of the resulting pass-through were larger, but I personally use this feature often enough in my current cars to want it in any sedan I own in the future.
On the Road
Sitting still the CTS looks and feels like a driver’s car. Does it deliver on this promise? The 3.2-liter’s grumbly voice lent the car some character, but felt a bit weak off the line. Its 220 horsepower also didn’t measure up to other similarly sized cars in an age when even Honda Accords come with 240 horsepower. Luckily, GM had a new 3.6-liter on the way. This engine puts out 255 horsepower at 6200 RPM vs. 220 at 6000 for the old 3.2.
For years I've criticized GM for passing on features like variable-length intake runners and variable valve timing. It claimed these weren't worth the extra cost and complexity, and that a few hundred extra cubic centimeters ought to more than compensate. Sorry, but it's not all about peak power. Including these features permits a multivalve engine to have a plumper torque curve. Without them, even the 4.6-liter Northstar V8 always feels a bit down on pep to me below 4000 RPM.
Well, with the new 3.6 (and a revised Northstar V8 also appearing this summer) GM has finally anted up with these features, and it shows. The 3.6 produces its peak torque of 250 lb-ft. at just 2800 RPM. The old 3.2 managed 220 at 3200. Competing V6s in Acura's TL-S, BMW's 530i, and Infiniti's G35 have their torque peaks at 3500, 3500, and 4800. (These figures are for 2003 models. For 2004 the Acura and BMW are being redesigned, and their engines could be modified in the process.) So the new CTS engine on paper now leads the class in flexibility by a substantial margin.
Yes, the Acura’s 3.2-liter and G35's 3.5-liter put out five more horses. But I'll trade these for the ability to burn regular unleaded any day.
Finally, the new engine has a 60-degree V, not the 3.2's odd 54-degree V. With a V6, 60 degrees is optimal for smoothness.
How does the new six work? For once GM has an engine that ranks with the best. The new six is extremely smooth, and the flatness of the torque curve is evident in the engine's quick, energetic response throughout the RPM range. As the 3.6 is the first engine in a large family that will power many future GM models, GM's future is suddenly looking brighter.
The noises made by the new engine are much more sophisticated than those made by the old one. A light, refined mechanical purr. Amazingly, the exhaust rumble that GM has previously felt the need to endow each and every one of its domestic V engines with is absent here. Instead, the exhaust is very muted.
If anything, the new engine's extreme refinement detracts from the car's sporting feel. I enjoyed what noises it did make, but like those made by the BMW 3.0 and Acura 3.2 better. (The throatiness of the Infiniti 3.5, on the other hand, sounds coarse in this crowd.)
The five-speed automatic transmission includes driver-selectable "sport" and "winter" modes. The sport setting on the transmission works much like that in the BMW Z4. Which makes sense, since I believe they are the same transmission. (GM supplies automatics for six-cylinder BMWs.) When this mode is selected, the transmission resists upshifting and generally holds one gear lower than normal. This is a great help when driving the car aggressively, as you get no surprise upshifts when lifting off the throttle as the entries of turns and the engine remains deep in its powerband at all times. On the other hand, you won't want the sport setting in normal driving, as it then creates the sensation of a broken automatic that is stuck in a low gear. Thoughtfully the "S" button is conveniently located right next to the shifter, where it can be engaged and disengaged readily.
There is no manumatic feature. One would be nice, even thought the sport setting largely makes up for the lack and if I had to choose between the two I'd go for the sport setting. Maybe next year, as Cadillac introduces its first manually shifted automatics in other models this summer.
A fairly large number of people who think they are serious enthusiasts gauge a car by its acceleration. I’m not one of these people. I believe that the most important element of a car, considerably more important than how it accelerates, is how it handles. Cadillac has been touting the handling of the CTS, stressing over and over how the suspension was developed on the world’s most challenging race track, Germany’s Nurburgring. I personally discount such PR. I don’t care where it was developed. The proof is in how the car drives when I am at the wheel.
Shockingly, given how often GM has disappointed me in the past, the 2003 CTS generally measured up to its PR. After years of trying to make front-wheel-drive work in a sports sedan, and never quite measuring up to the competition in the chassis dynamics department as a result, GM designed a balanced rear-wheel-drive chassis from scratch for the CTS. (The same chassis will be used for many future Cadillacs, including an X5-ish SUV appearing at dealers any day now and a Seville replacement due next year). This chassis really did handle extremely well. It felt balanced at all speeds. It managed to both respond crisply and immediately to steering inputs and feel stable while going straight. It felt alive.
In some ways GM might have listened a bit much. Cadillac's traditional clientelle must have complained about the 2003’s ride quality even if I did not. In response, GM has softened up the CTS's suspension. Supposedly this had no impact on the car's handling ability, but I'm not so sure. The numbers at the track might be just as good, but the character of the car has suffered. Where the 2003's handling had a slightly edgy quality I found appealing the 2004 has a more luxurious softness. In my review of the 2003 I concluded that the 2003 was about sport, not luxury. Well, between the new engine and the revised suspension (and I suspect upgraded sound insulation) the 2004 feels more luxurious, but also more bland. In both cases I drove the car with the sport suspension. In the 2004 the sport suspension could well be the base setting. I want more sport.
The “sport package” includes variable assist steering. I am not always a fan of such systems. In the CTS’s system, the level of assist varies by road speed. I much prefer such a system to the more common engine-speed based setup because effort does not vary erratically. At parking lot speeds, the CTS’s steering is very light. Combined with a very tight turning circle, this makes navigating tight turns effortless. While driving through the sub at about 30 MPH (my sub has some nice curves) the steering still feels a touch on the light side. At 40 and up, however, the level of assist becomes flat-out perfect, firm and communicative without ever requiring an uncomfortable amount of effort. At highway speeds you feel directly connected to the road.
Once upon a time GM sedans with performance pretensions invariably rode terribly. Not so with the CTS even in its 2003 incarnation. Road surfaces in my part of Michigan resemble some of the sorriest teenage faces, yet the 2003 CTS never reacted sharply except a couple of times at parking lot speeds. Generally, the ride felt firm yet supremely composed, even with the lower profile performance tires that come with the 17” wheels. These tires, Goodyear Eagle RS-As, are the same model on my wife’s Oldsmobile Intrigue. Even though hers are 60-series tires and these are 50s, the CTS rides considerably better, with much less jitteriness over minor road imperfections. The effect borders on the magical. It’s the sort of thing that Detroit believed was impossible just a few years ago. The 2004 rides even more smoothly. Although Cadillac is probably correct in assuming that most buyers will gladly trade some of the 2003’s sporty edge for a more luxurious feel, I personally lament the change.
The brakes are firm, linear, and powerful. Braking response perfectly matches pedal effort ant travel.
Traction Control Issues
Sadly, all is not perfect with the CTS’s handling. A major issue I noted with the 2003 took me a second test drive to sort out. In aggressive turns I would feel power cut to the engine, killing all the joy. At first I suspected the stability control (anti-skid) system, “Stabilitrak” in GM-speak. After all, the DIC announced: “The stability system has been engaged, press clear to continue.” (There was no need to press clear—the message went away after a couple of seconds.) This was bad news, since this system cannot be disabled. The only way to get rid of it is to not get the sport package, but that would also mean no 17” wheels and no sport-tuned suspension.
Luckily, a little reading of the brochure implied that Stabilitrak only operates the brakes. I felt engine power being cut, so the traction control (which keeps the drive wheels from spinning under acceleration) must also have been coming into play at the same time. (If it comes into play alone, it gets its own DIC message—hence my confusion when it operated unannounced in conjunction with Stabilitrak.) It was not immediately evident how to disable the traction control. The button is located very inconveniently in the hard to access glove compartment. Luckily, there are four programmable buttons on the steering wheel, and one of the things they can be programmed to do is nix the traction control. I took a second test drive, cycling the traction control on and off, and found that this fixed the problem. No more did I have to feel like a dog seeking to leap a fence, only to be yanked back by a tether. Judging from the frequent message on the (badly named) DIC, the Stabilitrak was still coming into play often, but it works fairly transparently. Unlike traction control, it does not significantly and abruptly alter the balance of the chassis. I also managed to find a patch of ice in one of my test drives of the 2003 car, and took some moderate throttle turns across it. Here the Stabilitrak worked amazingly well. I was very impressed. Lesson: Program one of those buttons on the steering wheel to turn off the traction control. It can definitely be useful in some situations, but in aggressive driving it tends to kill the joy.
Quality
Many people fear quality problems with American cars. Early signs suggest that the CTS might prove such fears unwarranted. In the J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, the CTS finished second to only the large Lexus out of every vehicle sold in the U.S. Now, few complaints during the first 90 days does not prove that the car's long-term reliability will also be stellar, but it's a very strong start. In past years GM cars have tended to score very poorly in this study in their first year of production.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The rest of this section dates from when the review was written.
Pricing has changed since I first drove the CTS. Some of the changes are good, some not so good.
First, the bad news. GM initially priced the CTS expecting it to sell without rebates. And it could have. But then GM rolled out across-the-board $3,000 rebates. To make up the deficit, the CTS’s base and option prices edged up in 2003, and have edged up a bit more for 2004.
The end result is that the 2004 car I drove listed for $39,145, which Edmunds suggests dealers discount to about $37,700. A year ago a comparably equipped CTS (just with the smaller engine and no lumbar adjustment) listed for about $35,800. That's a big price increase. The new engine accounts for $500 of it. The rest is likely to cover GM's across-the-board $3,000 rebate that was not originally planned for a car selling so well. There's no rebate on the 2004 yet, but it's got to be coming. I'd sit tight.
My car was equipped with the 1SB option package, essentially the same 1SB as before except it now includes $1,700 worth of new engine and automatic transmission and $400 worth of heated seats, and power lumbar for a total of $5,235. Since the 1SB package began 2003 at $2,000 (later $2,300), and I thought it was overpriced at that, you can guess what I think about the new 1SB with an extra grand tacked on.
The 1SC package rather than adding just the sport package for another $1,500 (later $1,750) now also adds the Bose stereo, CD changer, sunroof, split folding rear seat, and Xenon lamps--every option save XM radio and the nav system. It costs $4,715 more than the 1SB package, but includes options that separately priced cost $5,445. So with 1SC options aren't quite so overpriced.
Now, the good news. In 2003 the base CTS was available with no options. To even get a sunroof or the split fold-down rear seat you had to also order one of the pricey option packages. To get the sport-tuned suspension and 17-inch wheels you had to order the more expensive of the two option packages ($3,500 initially, $4,050 later in the model year). For 2004, the sport package is a standalone option priced at a somewhat reasonable (for this market segment) $1,875.
Given the new situation, I'd pass on 1SB. You don't get wood trim on the steering wheel that way, but in my mind that's a good thing, as wood on steering wheel rims is hot and slick. The sunroof and folding rear seat might also no longer require ordering an option package. With these three standalone options the CTS lists for just over $36,000. If you want more stuff, I'd go all the way to the 1SC package. The punts the price to $40,785, but it makes more sense than the optioned up 1SB car I drove.
What else can be had for these prices? Though they’re not as low as they were, they are still competitive. A Lincoln LS is about the same size and costs about the same, but makes a much weaker design statement, and is not nearly as rewarding to sit in or drive. I once drove an LS with a manual, and the stick felt totally out of place in the car. A large part of the problem was that the Lincoln’s interior is just plain blah. It’s about me-too near-but-not-quite luxury, not serious driving. If Lincoln wants to begin to match the CTS, it had better develop a more driver-oriented interior that includes much more heavily bolstered seats.
The CTS is sized like (and drives most like) the midsized Europeans, but priced and contented much more like their nimbler compact siblings. The Audi A4 and A6, BMW 3-Series and 5-Series, Mercedes C-Class and E-Class, and Jaguar X-Type and S-Type are either smaller, considerably more expensive, or both.
For 2004 both the E-Class and 5-Series will possess far more advanced technology than the CTS. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The Benz's innovative suspension and braking systems have been met with more criticism than acclaim. Time will tell if the new 5 does better. Unless the advantage in performance is tremendous, I personally favor the less complicated, more reliable, and less expensive to repair conventional systems in the CTS.
The significantly less expensive Lexus IS 300 is much tighter inside, is fitted with even cheaper looking interior materials, and pulls off the “different with an attitude” thing much less well. The toughest competition likely comes from the Infiniti G35. The Infiniti costs significantly less, performs a bit better in both the acceleration and handling departments, and actually has more rear legroom, but feels like the less expensive, less substantial car it is.
Last Words
It has its faults, but overall the CTS is a surprisingly good car. Virtually everything about this car says this is a car for serious drivers, not just pretenders who really only want a prestigious brand, pampering luxury, and a comfortable seat. Unlike with the Lincoln LS, a great chassis has not been burdened with exterior and interior styling meant to appeal to everyone. It took a lot of guts to create such a car, and I could not help but like the 2003 a lot.
The more refined 2004 CTS feels more like a Cadillac than the 2003. Most potential buyers will appreciate the revised car’s more luxurious feel, even if it reduces driving enjoyment a bit. I’m less positive about the shift in the car’s character, but still highly recommend the car. Once the new engine is available with a manual, it could well hit my sweet spot.
Since they're taking the extra year, hopefully when the 3.6-manual does arrive it'll be a six-speed. And Cadillac should throw in more aggressive suspension settings while it's at it. I'd suggest the magnetically controlled shocks from the Seville and Corvette, but these cost $1,695 on the latter and the CTS is already a bit pricey.
All in all, the 2004 CTS with the 3.6 is a much better car for those who enjoy luxury and refinement in their sport sedan. The new engine and revised transmission are excellent. All that remains is a true sport package. The CTSv with a Corvette engine, Brembo brakes, and extra-firm suspension will arrive late this year, but that car should cost about $50,000. What I'd like to see is an aggressively tuned 3.6 with six-speed manual in the mid-thirties. Here's hoping for the 2005 round of revisions...
CTSv
The CTSv looks even better than the standard car thanks to tasteful 18-inch alloys and a mesh grille.
Inside, the main difference is suede panels in the leather seats. These increase the seats' already adequate ability to keep people in place. In terms of appearance, I have no large preference either way.
The Corvette Z06-sourced 400-horsepower V8 is very strong. Unfortunately, it does not fit the character of the car. Although fairly quiet when cruising, during moderate to hard acceleration it produces a classic American V8 roar that sounds out of place in the futuristic CTS. The similarly large HEMI V8 in the Chrysler 300C sounds upscale in comparison, and its hardly a paragon in this area.
The shifter doesn't help. Although fairly light in effort, the throws are very long and the feel is very sloppy. Am I rowing cables here? I'm not sure, but it sure felt like it, and not well-secured cables at that. At least the shift knob is well-located and of a comforable size and shape. (That in the Corvette is too high, too large, and uncomfortably shaped.)
Between the engine and shifter, smooth shifts in traffic are not always easy. I pride myself on smooth shifts, and shook up my passengers a bit with this one. Under heavy acceleration driveability improves.
The v's suspension is much stiffer than the regular CTS'. Generally the ride is still acceptable, though it became overly busy on one stretch of road. The payoff is that the car handles very well. The chassis' attitude can be precisely adjusted with both the wheel and throttle. The stability control steps in unobtrusively to prevent excessive oversteer when accelerating hard through turns. The steering feels little different than in the regular CTS. As such it's pretty good, but I'd prefer a more direct feel with more feedback and more precision on-center. Overall, I'd prefer such steering with suspension tuning somewhere between the regular CTS and the v.
Overall, the CTS falls just short of impressive. It's very fast and it handles very well, but the engine's character doesn't fit that of the car and the shifter is a mess. A very good first cut at an ultra-high-performance Cadillac sedan, and a bargain compared to a BMW M5 with a price about $20,000 lower, but I'm hoping for a more refined package not too far down the road.
I give the regular CTS five stars, but the CTSv only four.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 39145, 5119
Model and Options: Automatic, 1SB, sport package; CTSv with sunroof
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.