About those changes for 2005...
Written: Nov 23 '04 (Updated Nov 11 '06)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Distinctive styling, front seats, ride-handling balance
Cons: Needs sharper steering and a more solid feel to fully compete
The Bottom Line: A very good car overall, but Cadillac seems more focused on watering it down to please its traditional customers than tightening it up to please enthusiasts.
|
|
|
| mkaresh's Full Review: |
From the time the CTS was introduced as an early 2003 model the most widespread complaint about it has been the quality of its interior. The materials are generally the soft-touch sort, but they don’t look or feel upscale. The hard-edged styling is partly responsible, especially on the door panels. Word on the net was that Bob Lutz had ordered a significant upgrade for 2005.
Well, the 2005 is here, and said upgrade is limited to a few bits of extra chrome trim on the instrument panel. The door panels, with their odd geometric insert and rough pebbly surface, are unchanged. As is the car in general.
The most notable changes for 2005 are a new base engine—a 2.8-liter V6 based on the 3.6 introduced last year—and a six-speed manual transmission is now available with both engines. I’ve been looking forward to the 3.6/6-speed combination. Unfortunately, as much as Cadillac promotes the availability of this powertrain the only place you’re unlikely to find one outside of the Cadillac website and brochure. The Cadillac dealers here in Michigan despite their volume don’t plan to stock any manual transmission cars except the CTSv. And the CTSv (see last year's review of the CTS, link at the bottom of this page) is overkill for my needs.
Since I reviewed the CTS last year, in the absence of a six-speed car I normally wouldn’t have tested it again. But a friend of mine was considering both the Mercedes C230 and CTS, so I drove them back-to-back to make a fresh comparison. I also drove the new STS recently, and this also affected my evaluation of the CTS.
Styling
The CTS’ stealth-fighter exterior styling is starting to age, but it still works for me. It remains unique, with a strong, distinctly American character. In comparison, the new 2005 STS’ sheetmetal is watered down and even borders on bland.
I need to qualify that “works for me.” It doesn’t work with the standard 16-inch wheels. The slab-like bodysides need at least the optional 17-inch wheels. It puzzles me that so many people would buy such an aggressively styled car with the relatively meek 16s; maybe they just want the brand, and don’t really get or feel much attraction for the looks of the car? In my mind, such an aggressively styled car should have the larger wheels standard if only to safeguard its public image. Inconsistencies hurt this image even when individual consumers literally buy into them.
The CTS also looks much better in some colors than others. Black is the best even though I usually don’t care for black. Silver is the worst (even though all the early ads used cars so painted).
Inside I still like the uniqueness of the instrument panel design, with its PC-like center stack. However, those door panels really need to go. Maybe for 2006? Here again the new STS is bland in comparison even if its materials look and feel significantly richer.
Accommodations
The CTS has a higher beltline and less glass than the import competition. Yet, unlike in many cars with high beltlines, I don’t feel buried in this one. This driving position fits with and reinforces the “stealth-fighter” theme. Though not excellent, the view out is sufficient.
The front seats continue to strike a very good balance between comfort and all-around support. They are less firm than the seats in a Mercedes or BMW, and for most buyers this will be welcome. Unlike in 2003 power lumbar adjustment is available.
The rear seat is low on knee room, but is otherwise comfortable. That in the larger STS is if anything less comfortable, as it feels lower to the floor and provides only a little more knee room.
The trunk is about average in size for a rear-drive midsize car. As in the German (but not the Japanese) competition, a fold-down rear seat is an option. Not so in the STS.
On the Road
I heaped much praise on the 255-horsepower 3.6-liter V6 when it was new last year, and this engine once again impressed me in terms of both refinement and power delivery. Overall it is a match for any six in the class. It might produce a couple fewer horses at the top end than an Acura or Infiniti six, but the midrange is plump enough that this will be noticed, if at all, only by those drivers who spend a lot of time north of 6000 RPM. In other words, not many. Acceleration is strong enough even with the five-speed automatic that I personally see little need for the Corvette-sourced V8 in the CTSv. Does this mean that even in 210-horsepower, 2.8-liter form performance will be acceptable? Likely so for the average buyer of this car.
About that CTSv: Even as Cadillac dealers tell me they won’t stock a six-speed 3.6-liter CTS because they see no market for it, the CTSv is only available with a six-speed. When asked about this apparent inconsistency, dealers tell me the cars sell to two very different markets. I’m not seeing it. Then again, the dealer down the street from me does have at least half a dozen of the “low volume” CTSv on the lot.
The comparably priced C230 is motivated by a 189-horsepower 1.8-liter turbo four. It’s not a bad four, but clearly cannot begin to compare to the six in the CTS in refinement, sound quality, or power. The 3.2-liter in the C320 should come closer, but then you’re talking big bucks. And it’s still down forty horsepower. For Mercedes’ sake the new 3.5-liter six in the 2005 SLK needs to find its way into the compact sedan sooner rather than later.
Shift focus to handling, and the C230 earns back some points. The CTS rides on a fine chassis, with admirable balance and composure, but the C230 flat out handles better. This surprised me, as the C240 I drove in 2001 failed to impress in this area. In the interim Mercedes introduced a “sport” version with beautiful 17-inch alloys and I suspect heavily revised chassis and steering calibrations. I especially liked the steering in the 2005 C230. It is quick and precise, with a very direct feel rarely found in a sedan. In comparison, the CTS’ steering feels numb and soft, especially near center.
I recall better steering and handling in the 2003 CTS. Cadillac revised the suspension for the 2004 car in response to complaints about ride quality. This despite all the talk of time spent at Germany’s legendary Nurburgring racetrack getting the suspension “just right.” They claimed that the lap times at the Nurburgring were unaffected by the revisions. Maybe so. But the revisions certainly yielded a softer feeling car.
Cadillac’s stability control system remains too quick to cut in and too obtrusive when it does cut in. Most such systems these days are nearly transparent.
I didn’t mind the ride in the 2003 CTS, so of course the softer 2004/2005 feels just fine in terms of ironing out the bumps in the road. The Mercedes rides more firmly. That said, the Mercedes has an ultra-tight, solid feel to it that you just don’t get in the Cadillac despite the high priority GM has placed on structural rigidity for over a decade now. This distinct difference begins with closing the door, where the Cadillac feels not much different than the average American car.
The extra bucks you’ll pay for the STS do get you an even smoother, even quieter ride and a slightly more solid feel.
Cadillac CTS Pricing and Price Comparisons
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.
A few quick runs find that the CTS (with the must-have sport package) is about $1,400 more than a similarly equipped C230, but about $5,600 less than the more comparable C320. The STS (after adjusting for its additional features) runs about $3,400 over the CTS.
The Japanese are tougher competitors. An Acura TL is about $6,000 less, an Infiniti G35 about $3,700 less.
Using TrueDelta, I generated all of these comparisons in a couple of minutes. This section of my reviews used to take up to an hour using other sites.
Cadillac CTS Reliability
I need your help here. Actually, everyone does.
Consumer Reports' reliability ratings leave too much to inference. If one car is "average" and another is "better than average," what does this mean? Does a "better than average" car "never break?" Is a "worse than average" car in the shop "all the time?"
My website, www.truedelta.com, will provide measures of reliability that not only can easily be compared from vehicle to vehicle but that directly relate to how a car or truck's poor reliability most affects its owner. These measures will include:
1. TiSH: How many times is a vehicle likely to need repair in a given year?
2. DiSH: How many days is a vehicle likely to be in the shop in a given year?
3. Lemon-odds: What is the likelihood a vehicle will require an unusually high number of trips?
4. Cherry-odds: What is the likelihood a vehicle will require no trips?
If you'd like to know these things, then please join my panel. Your participation will make a difference. To read all the details and sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.
Last Words
I continue to like the CTS’ unique look. And I think I’d like how the 3.6/six-speed drives, if only I could find one. But driving the CTS after driving the C230 also highlighted a weak area: the car’s steering. This happens to be a weak area with many GM cars, especially the new STS. GM is supposedly run by “car guys” these days. I have an area for them to focus on.
If you don’t really care about steering feel—well then I’m not sure why you’re attracted to such an aggressively styled car. But I guess I’m in the minority here, as most CTSs are fitted with the 16-inch alloys and virtually none are bought with a manual transmission. I guess most people who consider this car just want a standard American luxury car, just in a relatively compact package. Perhaps they’re also attracted by the bold styling, even if they don’t fully get it. For them, I suspect the CTS serves well. But especially for them it’ll do even better if and when it gets the rumored revised door panels.
My four-star rating is conditional on the sport package.
My reviews of related vehicles:
Acura TL
BMW 330
BMW 5-Series
Cadillac CTS (Last year’s more comprehensive review.)
Cadillac SRX {Would you prefer your CTS in tall wagon form?)
Cadillac STS
Infiniti G35
Jaguar X-Type
Lexus IS 300
Mercedes C-Class
Mercedes E-Class
Saab 9-3
Volvo S60
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.