The CTS-V Debuts: 0-60 in 3.9, Top Speed of 191 MPH

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 198 comments
  • 13,542 views

YSSMAN

Super-Cool Since 2013
Premium
Messages
21,286
United States
GR-MI-USA
Messages
YSSMAN
Messages
YSSMAN
Oh yeah! It is becoming ever so clear that the General has it's mojo back...

LLN.com
Spy photographer Chris Doane caught the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V in testing late Wednesday. So far, we've seen several shots of "ordinary" 2008 CTS test cars. These are the first images to date of the high-performance V-series variant. The prototype has a huge bubble in the hood, performance wheels, wide tires, unique (larger) exhaust pipes and — our photographer swears — an obvious "supercharger sound."

According to spy Brenda Priddy, one of the most dependable sources claims the CTS V Series will be powered by a 4.6-liter non-supercharged V8, while others insist — as the photos seem to show — a supercharged V8 is in store for the hot CTS. Some sources even claim this car will share the "Blue Devil" Stingray's supercharged V8 — which could explain why these two vehicles have been spotted in the same general area.

Horsepower estimates have also been all over the board, but it's safe to assume the CTS-V will have somewhere between 550-600 hp. Production should start in the fall of 2008, according to Priddy, with an annual run of 7500 V Series units is expected.



...Bo-Ya, Baby!

So, lets see here...

- We can assume that it will be cheaper than the M3, given that it is a Cadillac and the current model is indeed a bit less (at the moment)
- We can assume that the CTS will be slightly larger as well, even in coupe form (assuming rumors are true, based on current Sigma/E90 comparisons)
- We can assume that if GM keeps the weight gain to a minimum, 0-60 times should dip well-below the current 4.7 seconds, top speed should go north of 180 MPH, and cornering performance should increse dramatically
- We can assume there will be 500 BHP, atleast, hopefully from small-block power (atleast, thats what I want...)


But can we assume that it could best the rather mysterious M3?

...Maybe not...

I'd certainly hope so. Cadillac, and GM for that matter, have so much going for them right now that a model such as this would truely be epic not only in the United States, but worldwide as well. Given that GM currently has plans to make the CTS it's true "world-wide" product this time around with Coupe, Sedan, and Wagon forms and a wide-selection of engines available, why not make the CTS-V a true compeditor world-wide as well?

...Which gets me thinking: CTS Wagon + V-Series packaging = FUN!!!
 
:lol: Cadillac will make a car better than an M3! And San Marino will beat Germany in their return leg of Euro qualifying!

Gotta agree. It may be more powerful, it may be faster, but in time, the quality of GM will show through as well as the technology compared to the Germans.

The M3 is also very mysterious at this point. With the 335i and it's Turbo setup making spectacular reviews about now (and being filled up at Classic BMW), the M3 is sure to set a lot of fire to the automotive competition. The question remains is will both cars come out, and will both be as big a competition as they appear.

Anyways, YSSMAN, with a 500Bhp engine, and being a sport sedan, wouldn't this be better compared to an E60 M5 (not that I would expect it to do any better against such a machine, lol)?
 
The origional title did say M5, but I changed it at the last minute. Technically speaking, the CTS's big brother, the STS, does the fighting with the M5. I think once again the CTS will be a model that can be used to take on both cars (as the current model does), but Cadillac seems to want to compete directly with the 3-series this time, not just with a compotent sedan and a sport-sedan option, but with a wide range of models alike what is available from BMW.

...Could it be better? Yes. Will it be better? We'll see...

---

But you have to admit, this may be the first Cadillac that could truely overcome the BMW. Simply put, we don't know for sure, yet.
 
To be honest, I'm a bit more concerned about whose worth more.

The V Series isn't exactly cheap for what they offer.
The 483Bhp V8 XLR-V is a rip off compared to a M6, as I've stated in the past. The XLR-V cost you $100K. An M6 runs you $96,000. That's a $4,000 cheaper MSRP for 17 more horses. What I find more ridiculous is that I can add the comfort access and heads up display for just $2,000 and still stay under the Cadillac.

It doesn't change either with the STS-V really.
$75,385 for a 469Bhp V8 compared to a M5's $81,200 for a 500Bhp V10.

In fact, it still stands with the E46 M3 as well. $48,900 is a M3 Coupe's MSRP. CTS-V sells for...get this...$51,905. I'll give it the fact that's got 400 horses in a V8 compared to the inline-6 333Bhp, but still, that's nearly an equal range.

Sure, the BMWs cost more, but not by a lot. And they're pretty much worth that extra $5,000.

I mean, no offence YSSMAN, but Cadillac doesn't have any mojo back. Sure, they've got power like I said, but their pricing schemes are downright ridiculous compared to a BMW. You can compare the M3 and CTS-V right now, but which do you think will outsell each other? Performance these days doesn't really matter to the public. It comes down to value and quality, and again, no offense, but BMW has Cadillac in the corner in this area.

In my honest opinion, as I have stated before, and will state again, Cadillac are not at this point where they can compete with BMW, and ask for these ridiculous prices (excluding the CTS-V). I don't want to be a fanboy, but I can't see it happening. You can have Caddy beat BMW in a comparison test, but it won't change the fact that the BMW is cheaper, and most likely built much better.
 
Isnt this car like the size of the BMW 5er and the audi A6, so shouldnt it be fighting E63's, M5's and the upcoming RS6's?
 
Yep this car is in the same size bracket as the 5 series, not the 3 series. I would say the 5-series is a better car than the CTS on every level but price. You'll get a more powerful and faster 3-series for the price of the respective CTS here though, but the 3-series is a smaller car.
 
One thing that also hurts Cadillac compared to its German competitors is the resell value. They depreciate so fast it's incredible.
 
Well, nothing is offical here, but it is worth discussion no less. But, a few things:

1) Cadillac has its mojo back, and you would have to be quite silly to think not. They are building products that are not only compeditive in pricing, but in terms of quality as well. Certainly they may not be percieved to be at the level of BMW as of yet, but with the new updated models (and future models just a year away), it has been my understanding that quality has increased exponentially.

The question becomes, can Cadillac maintain their price advantage while matching quality levels? Maybe, maybe not.

RANDOM THOUGHT: Why is Cadillac ranked higher in most quality tests compared to BMW and Mercedes-Benz and yet everyone seems to think that their own quality sucks? Granted, plastic quality in some parts of the car isn't quite up to par, but as far as modern Cadillacs go (those that are part of the Art and Science design scheme) I'd say that they are comparible in most circumstances.

2) As of right now, the CTS sits in a strange spot between the 3-series and the 5-series. While it is indeed larger than the 3-series that it is supposed to compete against, so too is the G35 from Infiniti as well. When the CTS-V first debuted they did a test with it against both the M3 and the M5, and although it pretty much beat both models in terms of ability, most folks placed it against the M3, as the M5 was too "civilized" by comparison.

...Technically speaking, the Sigma (Plus-Sized) STS is the 5-series compeditor to Cadillac. Once again, Cadillac split the ticket between the 5-series and the 7-series and went with another model that undercuts the BMW in price. That of course depends on the model, and if we are talking about sporty models once again, comparing the STS-V against the M5 is kinda like comparing two completely different cars. Cadillac took the AMG approach and went onto building a "Bahn-Burner," not a sedan for the racetrack.

3) Resale values haven't been great for Cadillac, I'd be rather silly to deny that. But, on the upside things have been improving for the company here in the US. They are building highly compeditive and highly desireable products that appeal to a wide range of people, and that is a very good thing. For far too long Cadillac was almost a joke in this country, really the world, building cars for older folks that just wanted something "nice."

...Cadillac has said in the past that they want to have the crosshairs locked on Mercedes-Benz, and of course to some extent to BMW. That is why so many of their more recent products have seemed to have such a split personality, balancing luxury and sportyness. Their next-gen batch of models seem to be going more for the BMW side of things, and that is a very good thing.

----

Of couse, all of this is speculatory speak. The next-gen CTS won't even debut untill Detroit or New York in early 2007, and we won't even see any on the road untill next summer at the earliest. Cadillac, with mojo in tact, has a few surprises up their sleeves. We will have to wait and see, but this is indeed some of the most exciting Cadillac news we have had since the origional CTS-V debuted a few years ago.
 
From your summary it shows caddy has quite a bit in common with audi. Playing catchup with MB and BMW, and trying to fuse the best of both manufacturers into their own vehicles, although both of them are going after BMW more heavily than MB. Hell everyones going after BMW these days.
 
I wouldn't say Cadillac's qulaity is overall poor at least not in relation to the CTS, though as pointed out they do use cheap plastics in the interiors, the actual build of the cars is decent. When the CTS was tested on TopGear Jeremy didn't think it was a bad car overall, however unlike the Ford GT, Corvette C6 and Mustang he wouldn't recommend you consider it. In terms of the cars reliability, I don't know much about that to comment, but regarding the quality of the build and the materials used ect it's not upto BMW standards, yet. You do raise aninteresting point though, can they keep undercutting BMW prices and achieve the same quality, well not in Europe they can't, the CTS is already beaten in price by the respective 3-series and pretty close to the respective 5-series, but maybe in America. Size wise the CTS is firmly 5-series sized, it's not inbetween the 3-series and 5 series, it's 10cm too long for that. Infact it's exactley the same lenth as the 5 series and only marginally thinner than the M5.

BMW M5-
wheelbase 2889 mm / 113.7 in
front track 1580 mm / 62.2 in
rear track 1566 mm / 61.7 in
length 4864 mm / 191.5 in
width 1847 mm / 72.7 in
height 1468 mm / 57.8 in

Cadillac CTS-V-
wheelbase 2880 mm / 113.4 in
front track 1551 mm / 61.1 in
rear track 1558 mm / 61.3 in
length 4864 mm / 191.5 in
width 1844 mm / 72.6 in
height 1454 mm / 57.2 in

EDIT: As for the CTS-V against the M3, who was driving the M3 :lol:. Every test over here has the M3as not only the more capable car but the more enjoyable one to be driving as well.
 
Well, nothing is offical here, but it is worth discussion no less. But, a few things:

1) Cadillac has its mojo back, and you would have to be quite silly to think not. They are building products that are not only compeditive in pricing, but in terms of quality as well. Certainly they may not be percieved to be at the level of BMW as of yet, but with the new updated models (and future models just a year away), it has been my understanding that quality has increased exponentially.

The question becomes, can Cadillac maintain their price advantage while matching quality levels? Maybe, maybe not.

RANDOM THOUGHT: Why is Cadillac ranked higher in most quality tests compared to BMW and Mercedes-Benz and yet everyone seems to think that their own quality sucks? Granted, plastic quality in some parts of the car isn't quite up to par, but as far as modern Cadillacs go (those that are part of the Art and Science design scheme) I'd say that they are comparible in most circumstances.
What mojo? That it's got more power? I haven't seen any quality reports saying Cadillac's build quiality is way ahead of BMW. All the reports I'm reading say good for both, with BMW getting some Excellents. All these reports are showing that Mercedes-Benz and BMW still have better quality by a bit.
2) As of right now, the CTS sits in a strange spot between the 3-series and the 5-series. While it is indeed larger than the 3-series that it is supposed to compete against, so too is the G35 from Infiniti as well. When the CTS-V first debuted they did a test with it against both the M3 and the M5, and although it pretty much beat both models in terms of ability, most folks placed it against the M3, as the M5 was too "civilized" by comparison.
Umm, please show this reported where a CTS-V beat a M3 AND a M5.

...Technically speaking, the Sigma (Plus-Sized) STS is the 5-series compeditor to Cadillac. Once again, Cadillac split the ticket between the 5-series and the 7-series and went with another model that undercuts the BMW in price. That of course depends on the model, and if we are talking about sporty models once again, comparing the STS-V against the M5 is kinda like comparing two completely different cars. Cadillac took the AMG approach and went onto building a "Bahn-Burner," not a sedan for the racetrack.
Undercuts what? By a mere $1,000? The base 5 serie starts at $43,500. The STS at $42,765. And I wouldn't compare the STS to a vehicle like a 7 Series.
3) Resale values haven't been great for Cadillac, I'd be rather silly to deny that. But, on the upside things have been improving for the company here in the US. They are building highly compeditive and highly desireable products that appeal to a wide range of people, and that is a very good thing. For far too long Cadillac was almost a joke in this country, really the world, building cars for older folks that just wanted something "nice."
You had me til highly desireable products.
I see no Cadillac reviews that say the models are desireable or anything near. No why? It's their pricing they want for some of their models.

Look, Cadillac's on the right track. But the pricing they want for some of their models is downright ridiculous. They are not at that stage yet from old folk car to everyone wants it car where they can charge the pricing of a BMW. Some of the models need to be knocked a couple thousand more if they want some to take them serious.
 
I could belive a CTS-V beating a M3 due to the huge power advantage but a M5 no way. On topgear they tested the CTS-V versus the S4 and whilst the CTS-V would rocket away on the straights the S4 always caught up in the corners.
 
What mojo? That it's got more power? I haven't seen any quality reports saying Cadillac's build quiality is way ahead of BMW. All the reports I'm reading say good for both, with BMW getting some Excellents. All these reports are showing that Mercedes-Benz and BMW still have better quality by a bit.

The "mojo" I continue to refer to is that Cadillac has finially gotten out of its FWD, build what the beancounters want mentality. They are building products that people want, and they are selling them quickly enough to build more than what was origionally intended. Building cars like the CTS and STS in RWD was a sign that the old Cadillac is dead, and they are back to attempting to be the "Standard of the World" that they had once been.

...As for quality ratings, look no further than this years JD Power and Associates ratings:

1-jd-06.jpg


Hmmmm, notice something?

Umm, please show this reported where a CTS-V beat a M3 AND a M5.

Certainly; Car and Driver's origional test of a pre-production CTS-V from 2004, found here. On the M5, obviously it was an older model, but they were very similar no less. For more reading, I also have a test of the CTS-V (again, LS6-powered) against the C55 and S4, found here.

...Unfortunately, I do not know of a current magazine that has compared the LS2-powered CTS-V to any of it's European rivals...


Undercuts what? By a mere $1,000? The base 5 serie starts at $43,500. The STS at $42,765. And I wouldn't compare the STS to a vehicle like a 7 Series.

It isn't much, but it is undercutting, no? I would research the standard equipment, but as ledhed would say, "I'd rather drink beer."

You had me til highly desireable products. I see no Cadillac reviews that say the models are desireable or anything near. No why? It's their pricing they want for some of their models.

So tell me why the SRX has been the best luxury SUV for Car and Driver since its debut? Why do most American magazines like the CTS so much? Why do they all like the STS as much as they do?

...Certainly there are the obvious nitpicks here and there, but they are always highly recomended models for people who are looking for quiet, comfortable cars that have a bit of an edge to them.

Look, Cadillac's on the right track. But the pricing they want for some of their models is downright ridiculous. They are not at that stage yet from old folk car to everyone wants it car where they can charge the pricing of a BMW. Some of the models need to be knocked a couple thousand more if they want some to take them serious.

Hold on a second there chap, you need to be a bit more specific about which models we are talking about here. If you are talking about the XLR-V, certainly that is a bit expensive. Hell, even the regular XLR is, but to comparibly equip a Corvette, the price difference isn't all that small. Keep it in the context that you are paying for a Cadillac, not a Buick, and I think the prices seem to be just fine.

I could belive a CTS-V beating a M3 due to the huge power advantage but a M5 no way. On topgear they tested the CTS-V versus the S4 and whilst the CTS-V would rocket away on the straights the S4 always caught up in the corners.

Yes, I know what you mean. I didn't clarify which M5 it was, and it was the previous E39 that it was compared to. Also I belive that it is worth noting that the CTS-V tested on Top Gear was a 5.7L LS6 model, not the current 6.0L LS2 model. Although the power outputs are fairly similar, the LS2 has a power curve that is a bit more "useable" in most cases, and although it isn't a whole lot quicker, it has been said that it makes a difference.
 
So tell me why the SRX has been the best luxury SUV for Car and Driver since its debut? Why do most American magazines like the CTS so much? Why do they all like the STS as much as they do?

I beleive I am the one to answer these two.
For the Catera, they miss this car:
Lincoln_LS_new.jpg

For the Seville, they are glad this one is gone:
250px-2000_Cadillac_STS.jpg
 
Certainly; Car and Driver's origional test of a pre-production CTS-V from 2004, found here. On the M5, obviously it was an older model, but they were very similar no less. For more reading, I also have a test of the CTS-V (again, LS6-powered) against the C55 and S4, found here.

Oh, come on. An E39 M5 ending its run with a brand new car is fair? It'd be quite obvious to see why it isn't. The Caddy would be full of new technology. The E39 also ended production in 2003. So, not only are you comparing new to old, but pre-production to out-of-production technology. Not so much of fair comparison.
It isn't much, but it is undercutting, no? I would research the standard equipment, but as ledhed would say, "I'd rather drink beer."
Hardly, still. Only 1 out of the 3 models undercuts its BMW competitor and even then, the one that does is still only hundreds less.
So tell me why the SRX has been the best luxury SUV for Car and Driver since its debut? Why do most American magazines like the CTS so much? Why do they all like the STS as much as they do?
Sooo, 1 magazine justifies the SRX is a luxury SUV forever? They like the CTS and STS's because they're good cars. But that doesn't mean they're better than BMW. That's like me saying I like the Viper a lot, meaning its better than a Corvette Z06.
Hold on a second there chap, you need to be a bit more specific about which models we are talking about here. If you are talking about the XLR-V, certainly that is a bit expensive. Hell, even the regular XLR is, but to comparibly equip a Corvette, the price difference isn't all that small. Keep it in the context that you are paying for a Cadillac, not a Buick, and I think the prices seem to be just fine.
All the BMW competitor models. Look, I'm not saying they're bad cars, on the contrary, they're great V models. However, it's common fact that if you ask a guy to pick between the M3 and CTS-V, and then tell him the price, he'll pick the M3 because:
A) It's a BMW. The company has big reputation.
B) It's a well-known sports car from BMW that's $3,000 less.

Do this comparison with any of the other 2.

My point is that Cadillac, as I've said, is not at the stage where they can charge BMW prices for a car that doesn't have the reputation of the BMW, esp. when that price is equal or higher.
 
So tell me why the SRX has been the best luxury SUV for Car and Driver since its debut? Why do most American magazines like the CTS so much? Why do they all like the STS as much as they do?
Define "like".

The CTS has always finished behind the G35 and 3-series in comparisons. And it would also be hard to make an argument that the CTS is a better car than an Audi A4 or Lexus IS350. What exactly is it better than? Its not a bad car, but it is nowhere near the class lead.

The STS finished 5th out of 6 cars in an MT comparison earlier this year. It finished ahead of a Jaguar S-type, not exactly something to brag about. Car and driver you ask? 7th out of 8 in May of last year, again finishing ahead of an S-type. Very recently, C/D had an upscale sedan comparo, where there was no STS present. It didnt make the cut into an "elite little herd". On the other hand, a STS-V did finish 2nd out of 3 in a comparo, beating a CLS55, losing to an M5. Though the STS-V only finished ahead of the CLS because of price.

As for the SRX, I would judge anything american magazines say about SUVs. Recently one magazine rated an Escalade ahead of a Range Rover because it had bigger bling factor...
 
As for the SRX, I would judge anything american magazines say about SUVs. Recently one magazine rated an Escalade ahead of a Range Rover because it had bigger bling factor...
In Motor Trend's defense for that farce of an article, they did say that they were rating it on desireability, and also that the Range Rover was the better vehicle.
 
J.D. Power and Associates is a complete farce. They are biased just like Car and Driver and I don't believe a word they say. Fact is, until ANY American car gets an interior build quality that is on par with Germany the rest is a moot point. I don't care if the 2008 CTS-V had the Cadillac Sixteen concept's V16 in it...I'd still prefer an Audi, a BMW, or Merc. Hell give me an S-Type R over the CTS-V. The CTS-V has a great engine and looks fantastic...the interior build quality and overall FEEL of the interior still lacks. Drive an E350 and a regular CTS and tell me if you don't prefer the Merc.
 
I'm not going to stand here and defend Cadillac on every issue, but I think they do deserve some credit for turning the company around when it looked as though it was heading straight-on for the iceburg. They have managed to make desireable products for most folks, keep in mind that "most folks" may not include enthusiasts like you or I. The good looks, above-average quality, and identification that "you've made it" keeps Cadillac in the top-five luxury brands here in America...

Of course, worldwide it is a different story. Models like the CTS and BLS aren't going to carry the brand in Europe where the competition is thicker, and much tighter than what it is here in America. Certainly Cadillac and GM realise that, and they have been making big comitments to improving the quality of their products to get ever closer to the BMW and Mercedes-Benz benchmarks. I think that is pretty evident looking at the exterior and interior photos of the next-gen car, the interior being one of the most-important.

1-jun25-cts.jpg


---

Cadillac still has a long way to go before they are considered to be the best in their class, even I know that. But things are changing, for the better, and it will only be a matter of time before the Cadillacs we have all made fun of become serious threats to the well-established brands of Europe and Japan. It is a slow process, and GM has been smart in taking their time with the transition from "Old-people, nearly dead" company to "Old-ish people, younger folks like it" company.
 
I mean, no offence YSSMAN, but Cadillac doesn't have any mojo back. Sure, they've got power like I said, but their pricing schemes are downright ridiculous compared to a BMW. You can compare the M3 and CTS-V right now, but which do you think will outsell each other? Performance these days doesn't really matter to the public. It comes down to value and quality, and again, no offense, but BMW has Cadillac in the corner in this area.

I agree: Cadillac is leagues ahead of where it was just a few years ago, and gaining all the time, but they're still not quite getting it right. While probably every petoleum-blooded individual would be happy to see a 500/600HP CTS-V, that's just not going to cut it against BMW or (post-RS4) Audi. And the problem is that it's not about power. In this market it's about finesse, handling/feel, and long-term quality (the car has to still feel solid years from now).

Cadillac could release a 1,000HP CTS-V, and it would still be inferior to the V8 M3 (and the M5, which I also agree is its proper market). Cadillac need the one thing Mercedes has just recently figured out: add lightness. After they get that straight, the rest should eventually fall into place.

And as far as I'm concerned, Cadillac's "mojo" was never sports cars. It's simply not in their history. Just because sports cars are all the rage, doesn't mean it's the right thing for everyone. GM is so confused about which division does what, I'm surprised they can figure out who sits where at board meetings. They need to go back to the 1930's, when Cadillac's "mojo" meant Rolls-Royce was competition. That's an extremely lofty goal, but that's their history, not Le Mans.

YSSMAN
So tell me why the SRX has been the best luxury SUV for Car and Driver since its debut? Why do most American magazines like the CTS so much? Why do they all like the STS as much as they do?

I think it's because they're as surprised as I am about Cadillac: not the crap they expected. ;)
 
And as far as I'm concerned, Cadillac's "mojo" was never sports cars. It's simply not in their history. Just because sports cars are all the rage, doesn't mean it's the right thing for everyone. GM is so confused about which division does what, I'm surprised they can figure out who sits where at board meetings. They need to go back to the 1930's, when Cadillac's "mojo" meant Rolls-Royce was competition. That's an extremely lofty goal, but that's their history, not Le Mans.

That's fine and dandy, but before they started building "sporty" cars, Cadillac was headed nowhere fast. I'll tell you why -- it's a lot easier to build a BMW-fighter for cheap than it is to build a Rolls-Royce fighter for cheap. There's no stopping the voraciousness of a GM bean-counter, and building a big, heavy, softly-sprung "luxury" car doesn't work if you aren't allowed to spend enough money to actually provide the luxury. There isn't even any point in trying.

Cadillac's success and image have made leaps and bounds ever since they started building these new sports-sedans. Even a Euro-car snob like myself can appreciate what they bring to the table, which is more than can be said for what Caddy offered in the 90's and earlier. There's just something about seeing a tautly-sprung boxy 4-door powerslide to the soundtrack of classic american muscle that makes me smile. :)
 
I miss the big heavy luxury barges that Cadillac once had, like Eldorado, Deville, Coupe Deville etc.

I wish they had atleast one big heavy presidential style luxury car left.
 
The thing with the Cadillac versus the M3 is the same dilemma I'll (hopefully) be facing in about four years when I decide to replace my current car. I'm looking ahead to be buying either the Camaro with LS7, whatever they choose to call it, or the BMW 335i. The Camaro will no doubt be much faster, but the 335i will be a much nicer car on the inside. I just have to figure out what balance I'm looking for in a car between speed and luxury. Same for people debating to buy the CTS-V.
 
I miss the big heavy luxury barges that Cadillac once had, like Eldorado, Deville, Coupe Deville etc.

I wish they had atleast one big heavy presidential style luxury car left.
They still sell the Deville. It's just a piss-poor car.
 
They still sell the Deville. It's just a piss-poor car.

I think anyone at GM knows that, as the L-Body is just too tired to continue on. Quite frankly, I'd say you'd have to be crazy to actually go out and buy a DTS when you can get essentially the same car (albiet with a slightly smaller wheelbase) as the Buick Lucerne and save THOUSANDS of dollars. Hell, it can even be argued that the Buick looks better to. For some reason, the whole "Art and Science" look doesn't fit the big FWD car idea.

The good thing is that Cadillac is said to be working on a new full-size RWD chassis to replace the DTS in the future, but nothing is completely solid. But, we've been talking about the "ULS" for years now, and although it would seem that the Sixteen concept spurred those ideas, nothing has really come from the car other than an updated style direction.

Hopefully by the end of the decade Cadillac will have another big sedan to knock-gloves with that of the S-Class and the 750iL, as America could use a big limo on a budget...
 
Back