2010: CTS Sport Wagon, SRX

[McLaren]

Shame. Just so they can mass-market the CTS as different models, they end up killing one of their neatest vehicles and turn it into another stupid small-SUV.👎

 

[Mad94d]

I'm not sure if I like the very angular look about Cadillac's.

 

[Omnis]

Why does GM waste money like this? Hot damn that's an ugly truck.

 

[McLaren]

Why does GM waste money like this? Hot damn that's an ugly truck.

Makes you wonder why the reasons, they had to be bailed out, doesn't it?

 

[Max_DC]

I really like them, especially the sports wagon !

 

[Omnis]

Makes you wonder why the reasons, they had to be bailed out, doesn't it?

Makes me wonder why Keynesians are so retarded.

 

[Robin]

Both the cars look great, like jagged expensive watches..

 

[Giancarlo]

(CTS Sport Wagon picture)

How are you expected to see out the back of that thing?

 

[YSSMAN]

Shame. Just so they can mass-market the CTS as different models, they end up killing one of their neatest vehicles and turn it into another stupid small-SUV.👎

The previous SRX was amazing, so it is disappointing. But, with the current level of anti-SUVism going around, it makes sense to make it smaller, as as they will be doing with the Escalade soon-ish as well. As far as I can tell, there were never plans to do an Epsilon-II based crossover, ever, which pretty much ruled out keeping the CTS and SRX on the same line.

 

[harrytuttle]

Mix one part Pacifica, one part RX350, slather with Cadillac angles, and you get...something that's actually not that bad. Better than the SRX, at least. The nose is ginormous, though, and the analog clock is killing an otherwise acceptably avant-garde interior. Replace the clock with some other dial and I would happily recommend it to someone who wanted a Cadillac SUV.

 

[Philly]

I would happily recommend it to someone who wanted a Cadillac SUV.

It's not like there are too many other options to choose from...

The interior is pretty nice, although I wouldn't own it. And the thing, especially the front, look way too raked back. An SUV like this should be more upright and the hedgehog-doing-100mph look should be left to a car. Or the Dodge Caliber.

Why do I think Dodge Caliber when I see the rear parts of that thing?

 

[McLaren]

The previous SRX was amazing, so it is disappointing. But, with the current level of anti-SUVism going around, it makes sense to make it smaller, as as they will be doing with the Escalade soon-ish as well. As far as I can tell, there were never plans to do an Epsilon-II based crossover, ever, which pretty much ruled out keeping the CTS and SRX on the same line.

You don't have to tell me. I loved test driving the V8 SRX. That thing has a LOT of power. Couldn't agree on a set price with the dealer and I walked away.

Mix one part Pacifica, one part RX350, slather with Cadillac angles, and you get...something that's actually not that bad. Better than the SRX, at least. The nose is ginormous, though, and the analog clock is killing an otherwise acceptably avant-garde interior. Replace the clock with some other dial and I would happily recommend it to someone who wanted a Cadillac SUV.

Well, no duh. Have you seen what Cadillac wants for its Escaldes? $60K plus! Dealers here are taking $15K off the ones they can't sell. Ironically, they then still become $60,000.

I'd recommend the SRX too considering you're going to save yourself $20,000 off the Escalade.

 

[YSSMAN]

My guess is that it'll fit the needs of the average SRX buyer a little better as well. I don't think I've seen many anywhere near a dirt road (a few, sure), despite its overall capability. Part of the problem with the origional SRX was that Cadillac never really did a good job selling it with a primary focus. One year it was a real sport utility vehicle, the other it was a luxury crossover. They would go from chasing the X5, down to the RX350, never a really clear target.

That, and I'd care to argue that the V6 option made the V8 option somewhat pointless as well. Its a same you could never outfit it with the DIG 3.6L, but that would have made the Northstar feel even worse.

Now that I think about it, of course, with the SRX being smaller and presumably of lighter weight... All while having more BHP and an extra cog in the gearbox... Assuming Cadillac offers a nicely done FE2 or FE3 suspension kit, it should be one helluva sport utility vehicle again. *cough* I mean, crossover.

 

[Joey D]

So we have yet another monstrous wagon on our hands here.

REPORT: C/D says Lutz confirms Cadillac CTS-V Sport Wagon
Between the Buick Regal GS, front-wheel drive (and possible hybrid) Chevrolet Impala and the rumored Caprice SS, Bob Lutz has managed to release a scad officially unofficial details on General Motors' future product plans over the last two days. And now comes this.

Speaking with Car and Driver, Maximum Bob went into Maximum Bloviation mode when discussing the Buick Regal wagon, and then ostensibly confirmed that the Cadillac CTS-V Sport Wagon has been given the green light by saying, "You'll be able to get the CTS-V any way you want." Meaning: the CTS-V will be available in both coupe and five-door variants.

Naturally, anything that jumps out of Lutz' mouth should be taken with an extra helping of NaCl, as his past off-hand announcements haven't always come to fruition. Regardless, creating the duo of CTS-Vs is damn easy and we're hoping to see both in production form next year.

For once I think GM did something cool.

 

[Prince.M5]

Ah well... Sorry guys but the CTS certainly looks good in saloon but not in wagon. It looks hideous with those massive and long tail lights. I think also this car has got some sort of visibility problem when you're reversing. Look at the side at the rear, the window is too small. Now about the SRX... Naah not my taste at all...

But overall, GM did improved!!

* Note that these are just my opinions.

 

[YSSMAN]

The back end is chunky, but to keep the Art & Science look going they had to make some compromises. What I'm most excited about is the CTS-V version, which should be awfully interesting. God only knows how many they'll sell, but its a surefire way to create a cult hit.

 

[LSX]

I took a look at one of these wagons in the mall last weekend. Looks good from the front, like any CTS, I was not too happy once I got next to it to see the side and rear. I like wagons, but this one just rubbed me the wrong way, it just does not look right with the wagon rear, IMO anyways. Perhaps in black with gunmetal rims, lowered more stealth looking? I don't know, I didn't like the look of the coupe they released in pictures either, I think the CTS is fine in it's native four door trim, even more so in the V four door trim.

 

[Keef]

You people are strange. I think the wagon version looks much better than the sedan, specifically because of the side profile, window lines, and the rear end and tail lights.

 

[Kryz11]

I do not like it, it looks more like an small SUV or crossover then a Wagon.. Also since I've seen an overturned Cadillac with a flattened roof.. I would never buy one.

 

[Jim Prower]

anything short of a race car with full cage, if it overturns hard enough, will flatten the roof.

 

[LongbowX]

Also since I've seen an overturned Cadillac with a flattened roof.. I would never buy one.

anything short of a race car with full cage, if it overturns hard enough, will flatten the roof.

It may have flattened almost all cars roofs. Since every crash is likely different in some way it is hard to generalize. There are too many factors to call. It is very hard to say. If it was powerful enough collision to flatten the roof however, it was likely a pretty hard crash - one that most cars would have trouble taking. You could probably find a picture of almost any car with its roof flattened. And I'm sure there are some cars that you like in that bunch. By your logic, you'll have to cross Lamborghini off your list, for starters.

I do not like it, it looks more like an small SUV or crossover then a Wagon...

I don't believe the CTS Wagon does in real life. I've seen them side by side. The SRX is much taller. From the moment you sit in it, you can tell the difference.

Apart from the wrapping they are in, they drive similarly. I was driven in both, back to back and the CTS was a little firmer I would say. The exhaust was a little more pronounced on the SRX, but they both have an interesting growl - though it certainly isn't the best I've heard. Between the two, I would probably take the CTS Wagon. Simply because I believe a higher centre of gravity = evil (it's also a few hundred pounds heavier). And I also think that in some places the SRX looks cheap. I'm not fond of the rear lights either.

 

[YSSMAN]

The SRX is much taller... And I also think that in some places the SRX looks cheap. I'm not fond of the rear lights either.

There is also a significant difference between the (presumably) older SRX you're in reference to and the current one:

The previous Sigma-based SRX was a well-crafted CUV that due to near-constant updates remained otherwise relevant in an increasingly crowded class well into its twilight years at GM. The new Theta-based SRX is otherwise an entirely different machine. Cadillac has kept some of the sporty ideas in play, but its really meant to be more of an Audi Q3 and Lexus RX competitor. By most accounts, the SRX does a good job at doing so for a pretty reasonable price.*


*Problem is, GM makes the Equinox... For next to nothing, with excellent build quality and outrageous highway fuel economy, its the CUV to beat this year

 

[LongbowX]

There is also a significant difference between the (presumably) older SRX you're in reference to and the current one

The previous Sigma-based SRX was a well-crafted CUV that due to near-constant updates remained otherwise relevant in an increasingly crowded class well into its twilight years at GM. The new Theta-based SRX is otherwise an entirely different machine. Cadillac has kept some of the sporty ideas in play, but its really meant to be more of an Audi Q3 and Lexus RX competitor. By most accounts, the SRX does a good job at doing so for a pretty reasonable price.*


*Problem is, GM makes the Equinox... For next to nothing, with excellent build quality and outrageous highway fuel economy, its the CUV to beat this year

I was referring to the current one, not the previous generation (I'm not entirely sure why you thought I was talking about the previous generation since the current-gen SRX is what this thread is about). And I am also aware of how well crafted the previous version was (despite it's low-rent interior - however they fixed that. I peeked in one of the old SRX's at the dealership, and I must say it has been improved a great deal since its introduction.)

This new one is a different machine. Not as big. And also not rear-biased as the original was.

And the Equinox is tempting,being reasonably similar.

Though I agree, its price is quite comparable to the others in its class. We also drove the Volvo XC60 and in comparison, found it slightly better than the SRX. In my opinion though. It has nice raspy exhaust and the turbo response was excellent.

 

[Paulie]

Did anyone notice yet that the production CTS Coupe debuted today? Looks almost the same as the concept essentially. A 3-Series Coupe fighter it may be, but comparing turbo to aspirated is apples to oranges, so it will almost certainly lose drag races and straight-aways to BMW, especially since the 335i is illegedly massively under-rated for power.

 

[LongbowX]

Did anyone notice yet that the production CTS Coupe debuted today? Looks almost the same as the concept essentially. A 3-Series Coupe fighter it may be, but comparing turbo to aspirated is apples to oranges, so it will almost certainly lose drag races and straight-aways to BMW, especially since the 335i is illegedly massively under-rated for power.

It will definitely lose down the straights. The 335i isn't just allegedly underrated. It is underrated. From this source, they ended up with 350 horsepower and 360 lb-ft of torque (http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_2007_bmw_335i_dynamometer/index.html. It's also likely caused the Audi S4 with the supercharged engine to be underrated to the tune of around 400 horsepower, versus the 333 it is advertised to have http://www.quattroworld.com/blog/apr-posts-dyno-results-for-stock-2010-s4/).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the CTS Coupe likely won't make it up in the corners either. But I have to give them credit, it does look remarkably like the concept.

 

[YSSMAN]

Much of that depends on whether or not you think its even "fair" to pin the CTS against the 3-er in the first place. After all, the CTS is roughly the size of the 5 and 6, and by all means, placing a CTS Coupe against a 6-series would be interesting. Of course, the lack of a V8 option kills it.

I'm quite fond of the car, but thats not much of a surprise. Cadillac did a good job of keeping most of the concept details in place, and given the right chassis tune, it should be one hell of a drive within the segment.

 

[Jim Prower]

I still think the thing looks like an overgrown '80s Rear-drive Hatchback. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

[Paulie]

Much of that depends on whether or not you think its even "fair" to pin the CTS against the 3-er in the first place. After all, the CTS is roughly the size of the 5 and 6, and by all means, placing a CTS Coupe against a 6-series would be interesting. Of course, the lack of a V8 option kills it.

I'm quite fond of the car, but thats not much of a surprise. Cadillac did a good job of keeping most of the concept details in place, and given the right chassis tune, it should be one hell of a drive within the segment.

There is supposed to be a CTS-V version, so........CTS-V Coupe vs M6?

 

[McLaren]

Much of that depends on whether or not you think its even "fair" to pin the CTS against the 3-er in the first place. After all, the CTS is roughly the size of the 5 and 6, and by all means, placing a CTS Coupe against a 6-series would be interesting. Of course, the lack of a V8 option kills it.

I'm quite fond of the car, but thats not much of a surprise. Cadillac did a good job of keeping most of the concept details in place, and given the right chassis tune, it should be one hell of a drive within the segment.

Wasn't that supposed to be one of the XLR's key areas?

 

[Paulie]

I would have thought that the XLR was more aimed at the Merc SL. Am I not right in saying the XLR was actually a pretty good car but way over-priced hence its lack of popularity? I wouldn't know since I've never read a review of it, but since it's basically a Corvette convertible with more weight it couldn't be too bad.......?