Cadillac CTSv review from edmunds [Archive]

View Full Version : Cadillac CTSv review from edmunds

Sharp11

08-11-2006, 06:12 PM

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=102194

I was correct about the engine, it's the ls6 from the vette, the old pushrod v8.

The author feels the brakes are touchy, the axle tramps upon acceleration and the overall refinement and handling is not in league with similar BMW's.

Other reviews are similar, but johnv and clyde think they're all wrong, and that BMW doesn't build cars that handle as well because they're front-engined over mac struts and that the caddy "must" be better (they have no evidence to support this of course) because it uses double wishbones.

But what can the rest of the world's motoring press know? JohnV and Clyde must be right, right? Of course they are because they've driven one on a weekend autox outing and they come to conclusions that are hard and factual. :lol:

Read it yourselves if you even care.

Ed

Plaz

08-11-2006, 06:17 PM

Nick M3

08-11-2006, 06:18 PM

SCCA T2 results indicate that the CTS-V is quite a lot faster around a track than the E46 M3. That's solid evidence for me - I couldn't really care less what a magazine review says.

Sharp11

08-11-2006, 06:21 PM

Theo

08-11-2006, 06:23 PM

08-11-2006, 06:36 PM

Almost makes the E36 interior look nice. =P
Almost?

lemming

08-11-2006, 06:40 PM

i don't need to read it because i live with it.

:D

the only thing i don't like about it is the shifter. i like everything else about the car. their critiques are all really valid, though.

i did read that review when it first came out and i just re-read. i think you have selective reading because if you only read what you posted, you'd come away with a pretty negative review. that does not seem to be the tone of the article to me, especially with regard to the handling --i am unsure where you are getting that part.

"That same suspension displays no such flaws when it comes to keeping the car well planted on the street. Like the standard CTS, the CTS-V spent significant time at the grueling Nurburgring test track in Germany where engineers fine-tuned every aspect of its suspension setup. The result is a set of revised springs, shocks and bushings that work with the ultrastiff chassis to deliver the kind of confidence that makes the CTS-V every bit as fun to drive as an M5.

Whether you're threading tight turns or sliding through long sweepers, the CTS-V displays the kind of delicate chassis balance that has always made BMWs feel a cut above their peers. The car steps out predictably when you probe its limits and even the steering is so well sorted that it rarely leaves you guessing. Like the Z06, the CTS-V offers a competitive mode for the stability control system that can be selected for a little more leeway when running hard, but we found the standard mode so unobtrusive that we doubt most owners will see the need. After a spirited test-drive, one clearly impressed editor wrote: "It may not be as slick as a BMW in its overall manner, but the way in which it begs to be driven hard is reminiscent of just about every 3 Series I've driven in the last five years."

...or even their conclusive paragraph:

"Minor annoyances aside, the CTS-V is hard not to like. Ridiculously fast in a straight line and utterly composed in the corners, this is a car that reminds you why V8s rule the world. With an improved rear suspension and better-looking interior, it would rival the world's best, but even in its current form there's still plenty to get excited about. A Cadillac that's fast, "affordable" and fun? It shouldn't compute, but when it comes to the CTS-V, it adds up to one of the best Cadillacs ever."

i understand that you are providing your own synopsis for effect, but the data that you present actually undercuts most of what you are writing. do you see what i mean?

ZBB

08-11-2006, 06:42 PM

I've always wanted to like the CTS-V, but this is why I could never buy one:

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/spinaroundtown/04.cadillac.ctsv/04.cadillac.ctsspecv.int.500.jpg

:ack: :ack: :ack:

I always thought the basic layout wasn't really that bad in the CTS... It has the center stack canted towards the driver, the nav screen is fairly high, decent guage cluster, etc.

But it also turns me off and kept me from even considering any CTS because:
- The dash feels too close to the driver -- it really makes me feel claustrophobic. Might be because its so tall, but the center stack jutting out from the rest of the dash doesn't help much.
- The materials used are aweful -- yuck gray and monochromatic plastics that just feel horrible to the touch and look even worse.
- I know a lot of you guys think wood doesn't belong inside a sporting car, but if done properly it can really make a nice looking interior. It helps break-up the monotony of plastic...

rautox

08-11-2006, 06:45 PM

Features like an aluminum block and pistons, hollow intake valve stems, sodium-filled exhaust valves, electronic throttle control and a composite intake manifold...Ya, it's a tractor. :willy:

Being familiar with them both, and their abilities behind the wheel, I'd take Clyde and John's views over Edmunds' every time. But, :dunno: My limited time behind the wheel of one led me to a similar opinion. It's good.

Sharp11

08-11-2006, 06:47 PM

i understand that you are providing your own synopsis for effect, but the data that you present actually undercuts most of what you are writing. do you see what i mean?

don't use mine, use theirs then:

What Works:
V8 muscle, do-it-yourself gearbox, composed chassis, inexpensive compared to its peers.
What Needs Work:
Can't always keep its feet planted, interior design still looks awkward.
Bottom Line:
It may be a little rough around the edges, but the CTS-V is still one of the most promising signs yet that Cadillac is ready to take on the world.

and in the body of the article:

Not everyone agreed as wholeheartedly about the refinement of the CTS-V, however, as there were several complaints about the rubbery feel of the shifter and the touchy brakes. "This car matches up well with good European sedans in so many ways, but the feel of its shifter is certainly not one of them," one driver wrote. The brakes turned in an impressive 115-foot stop from 60 mph at the test track, but the feel through the pedal was vague at times and we recorded inconsistent stops after the first test. Other minor gripes included mismatched pedal heights that make heel-and-toe downshifting awkward and a steering wheel that could stand to lose an inch or two in diameter.

Yes, I agree, the whole selective posting thing can be quite tricky.;)

Ed

JST

08-11-2006, 07:18 PM

I was correct about the engine, it's the ls6 from the vette, the old pushrod v8.

Did anyone dispute that the engine used in the CTS-V (was) the LS6? It is now, BTW, the LS2, which is the 6.0L engine used in the current 'vette.

What people said, and what is true, is that the LSx series of engines are essentially clean sheet of paper designs that have essentially three things in common with the small block Chevy's that you presumably mean when you say "the old pushrod V8": 1. Bore center spacing; 2. Valvetrain type; 3. Number of cylinders. The new engines don't even displace the same--the old 5.7 liter V8 was a 350 cubic inch engine. The LS6 was 346 cubic inches. That difference in displacement reflects the fact that the engine was entirely new in 1998 (?) as the LS1, and the LS6 was the hi po version of that motor. Referring to these engines as the same makes as much sense as saying the old iron block M50 and the new magnesium/aluminum N54 are the same because they are both DOHC inline sixes made by BMW.

So, yeah. Not really the same motor. Sorry.

WRT to the CTS-V, all I'll say is this--I have yet to meet someone WHO HAS DRIVEN ONE that doesn't sing its praises. In fact, AFAIK everyone I know that has driven one comes away a convert, with a twinge of CTS-V evangelism. Even my wife.

Is it perfect? No. The interior is kind of ugly (though no more so than any new BMW, in my mind). The shifter is vague. There's no handbrake. It desperately needs a telescoping steering wheel.

But what car is perfect? The Z4? :lol: Any BMW? Yeah, right. They all have their problems. The CTS-V just has fewer than a lot of other cars, and has some real assets that many other cars don't have. 400 of them, to be precise.

lupinsea

08-11-2006, 07:33 PM

Rob

08-11-2006, 07:44 PM

lol. You are right, Ed. The magazine knows way more about the car than people that live with them.

The shifter sucked. That's what ssks are for.

I don't know what they are talking about with regards to brakes. They aren't touchy as far as I can tell.

The clutch is better than any BMW clutch I have driven, including the e36 M3 version (although I might say the opposite if I were driving an e36 atm - they are close).

Switching the tires to something not as sticky as the oem runflat supercars pretty much takes care of the axle hop. I know that doesn't forive the design flaw, but those tires are worn out at about 5k miles - life is full of compromises.

The car handles so poorly that it is faster around the 'ring than just about every BMW ever made. But you must be right b/c BMW is great b/c it has the badge and the heritage. Sheesh.

The car has its share of problems. Lots of people don't like the interior. Hell, lots of people don't like the exterior and I am not particularly fond of it (it's not why I bought the car). But it is hella fun to drive and nothing comes close to it at its price point. Why would you try and bash it?

Plaz, you should drive mine. You would love it when you were done, you would just hate the interior.

Oh, and for the record, I am not exactly sure what you meant when you said "I was correct about the engine", but in the '04 and '05 model years, it's the LS6 engine from the Corvette Z06 (previous generation). The engine has a lopy idle and "hot" cam and supposedly gives it character. The '06 and '07 versions get hte LS2, the engine from the current stock 'vette and, OMG, used in TRUCKS so it has to suck. It is much smoother, according to reports I have read. Both power plants are push rod pieces of crap that don't weigh much and generate 400 hp. *shrug* You are right though - it's an old push rod V8. Whatever that means.

There is no other non-exotic car that even tempts me to trade out of the V. Maybe a new V with an attractive interior and even more hp, but that is not yet available. Perfect? No. Better (for me) than a e46 330, e36 M3 or e46 M3? By a gazillion miles. (Ironically enough, I will never consider an e90 b/c of its interior design - at least the V design is oriented to the driver. :lol: )

Rob

08-11-2006, 07:46 PM

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/spinaroundtown/04.cadillac.ctsv/04.cadillac.ctsspecv.int.500.jpg

What I don't get is why they have an old school 5 1/4" floppy drive in the middle of the center stack?

Required for swapping out 5 1/4" floppies for the nav system on the fly. I always thought it was funny how different the cd slot was compared to the dvd slot.

Ignore any parts of my post above that JST beat me to. Oh, and Ed . . . come down and drive my car. Hard. For a weekend. It won't replace your two seater roadster, but you won't laugh at it anymore either.

lemming

08-11-2006, 07:49 PM

don't use mine, use theirs then:

What Works:
V8 muscle, do-it-yourself gearbox, composed chassis, inexpensive compared to its peers.
What Needs Work:
Can't always keep its feet planted, interior design still looks awkward.
Bottom Line:
It may be a little rough around the edges, but the CTS-V is still one of the most promising signs yet that Cadillac is ready to take on the world.

and in the body of the article:

Not everyone agreed as wholeheartedly about the refinement of the CTS-V, however, as there were several complaints about the rubbery feel of the shifter and the touchy brakes. "This car matches up well with good European sedans in so many ways, but the feel of its shifter is certainly not one of them," one driver wrote. The brakes turned in an impressive 115-foot stop from 60 mph at the test track, but the feel through the pedal was vague at times and we recorded inconsistent stops after the first test. Other minor gripes included mismatched pedal heights that make heel-and-toe downshifting awkward and a steering wheel that could stand to lose an inch or two in diameter.

Yes, I agree, the whole selective posting thing can be quite tricky.;)

Ed

just demonstrating to you that i can play your silly little game and you still have not addressed the overall mood of the review.

as far as i am concerned, all this demonstrates is your reluctance to find something out with your very own senses. which is fine, but understand that a lot more credence is going to be given to people who have actually driven the car. yeah, that whole empirical data thing again.

you dodged pretty badly when you tried, amusingly, to equate what you do for a living to what i do.

clyde

08-11-2006, 07:50 PM

Sharp11

08-11-2006, 07:50 PM

Required for swapping out 5 1/4" floppies for the nav system on the fly. I always thought it was funny how different the cd slot was compared to the dvd slot.

Ignore any parts of my post above that JST beat me to. Oh, and Ed . . . come down and drive my car. Hard. For a weekend. It won't replace your two seater roadster, but you won't laugh at it anymore either.

You're late to the party - I'm sure you'll get to that "other" thread soon enough.

Ed

Rob

08-11-2006, 07:52 PM

You're late to the party - I'm sure you'll get to that "other" thread soon enough.

Ed

Yes, I just saw that. I have only skimmed it so far, but it didnt' take long to figure out what started this thread. That's what I get for missing a day or two on the boards. Sorry.

You are still welcome to come and drive my car though. :D

Sharp11

08-11-2006, 07:59 PM

Yes, I just saw that. I have only skimmed it so far, but it didnt' take long to figure out what started this thread. That's what I get for missing a day or two on the boards. Sorry.

You are still welcome to come and drive my car though. :D

Thanks, I appreciate the invite.

I'm sure the CTS kicks ass, it should, but this whole thing just got way out of hand, as usual.

Ed

Sharp11

08-11-2006, 08:03 PM

just demonstrating to you that i can play your silly little game and you still have not addressed the overall mood of the review.

as far as i am concerned, all this demonstrates is your reluctance to find something out with your very own senses. which is fine, but understand that a lot more credence is going to be given to people who have actually driven the car. yeah, that whole empirical data thing again.

you dodged pretty badly when you tried, amusingly, to equate what you do for a living to what i do.

I posted a link to the review, people can decide for themselves what it all means.

It supports the notion the CTSv is a good value, fun to drive, etc., but not quite all there in terms of refinement.

And it's not finished up to class standards.

You attempted, as I read it, to denigrate my occupation, I don't know why, but you just did it again - if it makes you feel better to look down on people in the arts, so be it.

Ed

lemming

08-11-2006, 08:52 PM

I posted a link to the review, people can decide for themselves what it all means.

It supports the notion the CTSv is a good value, fun to drive, etc., but not quite all there in terms of refinement.

And it's not finished up to class standards.

You attempted, as I read it, to denigrate my occupation, I don't know why, but you just did it again - if it makes you feel better to look down on people in the arts, so be it.

Ed

but you started this thread by cherrypicking what you wanted to present. all i did was reread the entire article in context to demonstrate that i could choose as many segments, if not more, from the same article that counter your tone. and the closing paragraph was a far cry from your conclusion.

i'm not mocking the arts, i am merely highlighting that as condescending as you are about music, when it comes to data, this is what i do for a living. your syllogistic logic and reluctance to preface your conclusions with proper caveats simply demonstrate to me that you trying to equate what you do to what i do was incredibly naive. the simple fact that you don't find it important to have empirical data to form an opinion demonstrates this to me. maybe you can do that in your profession, but people lose jobs in mine if they form "educated" opinions based on theory with no data to back it up.

back to this thread and the other one. once again why i would lend much more credence to clyde and JV on this particular topic. you trivialize by saying a "mere weekend" spent driving the car makes them experts. they never said as much. they simply have more informed opinions. your own reluctance to even recognize this speaks to a desperate and stubborn need to stick to your obtuse logic on this subject once again. completely ignoring the fact that they 'might' have more insight into this matter than you because, while they don't own this car and haven't chosen to do so, they've actually driven it.

i was polite before, but your own arrogance is on display here, not mine. i must just not think as highly of myself and my opinions as you do, because when i'm wrong, i'll admit it. when i have an opinion, i recognize it as just that and if someone has something more intelligent insight, i cede the point. clyde and JV have no problem illuminating when i'm wrong and their logic and points are better than mine, i have no problem admitting as much.

clyde

08-11-2006, 09:10 PM

clyde and JV have no problem illuminating when i'm wrong and their logic and points are better than mine, i have no problem admitting as much.

Is that your roundabout way of admitting that ring times don't matter and racing has nothing to do with sports cars or pedigree?

:willy:

lemming

08-11-2006, 09:17 PM

Is that your roundabout way of admitting that ring times don't matter and racing has nothing to do with sports cars or pedigree?

:willy:

of course it is. :cool: i don't define what a sports car is for anyone but myself. i have an opinion on the matter, but it comes from what is important to me in a sports car. what other people do with their money is their business. but when realize that when you make something public here, it's fair game to ponder aloud. for example, you'll note that i haven't weighed in at all on the Ariel Atom purchase or its odyssey eastward, right?

a prime example is whether or not the miata is a sports car. it's a polarizing topic. but at least i've owned a miata, so that ownership experience has shaped how i feel about the car. i personally don't think it has the power to weight ratio to be considered a sports car. semantics, but i think it's a sporty car.

hopefully, through my car purchases, you see that i've put my own money (not my company's, not anyone else's) where my mouth is.

Eric Giles

08-11-2006, 11:11 PM

I will say this about the CTS-V....it is about the only GM product I would ever consider buying.

And that says a LOT.

Sharp11

08-11-2006, 11:26 PM

but you started this thread by cherrypicking what you wanted to present. all i did was reread the entire article in context to demonstrate that i could choose as many segments, if not more, from the same article that counter your tone. and the closing paragraph was a far cry from your conclusion.

i'm not mocking the arts, i am merely highlighting that as condescending as you are about music, when it comes to data, this is what i do for a living. your syllogistic logic and reluctance to preface your conclusions with proper caveats simply demonstrate to me that you trying to equate what you do to what i do was incredibly naive. the simple fact that you don't find it important to have empirical data to form an opinion demonstrates this to me. maybe you can do that in your profession, but people lose jobs in mine if they form "educated" opinions based on theory with no data to back it up.

back to this thread and the other one. once again why i would lend much more credence to clyde and JV on this particular topic. you trivialize by saying a "mere weekend" spent driving the car makes them experts. they never said as much. they simply have more informed opinions. your own reluctance to even recognize this speaks to a desperate and stubborn need to stick to your obtuse logic on this subject once again. completely ignoring the fact that they 'might' have more insight into this matter than you because, while they don't own this car and haven't chosen to do so, they've actually driven it.

i was polite before, but your own arrogance is on display here, not mine. i must just not think as highly of myself and my opinions as you do, because when i'm wrong, i'll admit it. when i have an opinion, i recognize it as just that and if someone has something more intelligent insight, i cede the point. clyde and JV have no problem illuminating when i'm wrong and their logic and points are better than mine, i have no problem admitting as much.

I didn't cherry pick anything, I merely posted what they said in their own "what works" and "what doesn't" segment.

You may not like what I chose, but it was my post and I'm not here to post things that are "pleasing" to you.

It's you who misses the point of the review if all you got from it was sunny skies.

I like to read what clyde and jv have to say, it's one of the reasons I come here, but in the wider world of cars, their opinions are not nearly as valuable to me as a spectrum of journalist who drive many cars under many circumstances for a living. No, not a "single" reviewer's opinion, but many, a consensus.

As for me forming "opinions" without trying things; yes I do, why? Because I'm human, but I'll always try something if I at least like something about it. For me, a car like an M5 or CTSv are not enticing, at least not now, but I'm famous for changing my mind.

I was a critic of the Z4, too, when it first appeared, but I warmed up to it for many reasons, but mainly because I grew to really like it. I drove every car in its class (save the Boxster- too expensive and the Solstice-none available).

If I do go for an E92, I'll probably check out the Audi A4 as well.

As for music, I hardly ever talk shop so I don't know how I offended you there, but I do like to hurl bombs from time to time, so......

Ed

John V

08-12-2006, 02:19 PM

I'm just gonna post one thing up here. With the exception of the shifter, I came away from my CTS-V weekend (which involved quite a bit of street driving as well as the competition) thinking that it was a really kick-ass car and that I would love to own one as a daily driver.

Now, I'm suiting up and taking Marisa out on the motorcycle. Have a good weekend, everyone. :)

lemming

08-14-2006, 09:44 AM

my main reply to both this review and this original post is:

there isn't another car right now on the market that i'd rather drive to/from work or use when i have visitors to tote around.

as a first generation car, i give it a lot of leeway because the dynamics are really good. there is no caveat there. i've owned the ultimate BMW for feel, the e36m3, and this car has everything all over that car. brakes, acceleration, handling, etc. even if you wanted to take it to the mat and compare it nose to nose with anything in the BMW stable: there is no compelling alternative.

there is nothing with the torque or 4pot brakes all around or space or nurburgring pedigree. :dunno: there is no issue with the car not appealing to someone because it is a polarizing car. but i'd throw the gauntlet down.

i bet both me and Ed would post faster autocross times in the CTS-V than in the steptronic 3.0 z4 on the same course on the same day. but, like much of the theoretical opposition to the car, that's just theory. but because i'm an empirical sort of guy, i'd put money on it.

;)

John V

08-14-2006, 09:47 AM

i bet both me and Ed would post faster autocross times in the CTS-V than in the steptronic 3.0 z4 on the same course on the same day. but, like much of the theoretical opposition to the car, that's just theory. but because i'm an empirical sort of guy, i'd put money on it.

I seriously doubt that.

lemming

08-14-2006, 10:08 AM

I seriously doubt that.

that being obvious, but still theoretical.

to prove/disprove, one would actually have to drive both, huh?

:D

if we are going to strictly deal in the realm of the abstract, i can put something like that out there. if it turns out that me and Ed are faster in the Z4, is that a point lost? not really, because that would have meant i'd have put Mozart into the V at speed.

Sharp11

08-14-2006, 11:59 AM

that being obvious, but still theoretical.

to prove/disprove, one would actually have to drive both, huh?

:D

if we are going to strictly deal in the realm of the abstract, i can put something like that out there. if it turns out that me and Ed are faster in the Z4, is that a point lost? not really, because that would have meant i'd have put Mozart into the V at speed.

It's apples vs oranges.

Ed

lemming

08-14-2006, 12:08 PM

It's apples vs oranges.

Ed
as an exercise, it would still be fun to do.

John V

08-14-2006, 12:15 PM

as an exercise, it would still be fun to do.

I'm not sure why.

Put good driver in each car and the Z4 will win every time. Put you two in the cars and who knows, neither of you has a whole lot of autocross experience and each of you will be familiar with your own car so the results would be meaningless.

lemming

08-14-2006, 03:00 PM

I'm not sure why.

Put good driver in each car and the Z4 will win every time. Put you two in the cars and who knows, neither of you has a whole lot of autocross experience and each of you will be familiar with your own car so the results would be meaningless.

i've been on the clock at an autocross twice in my life.

i think it'd be a pretty fair thing, in making a point either way, for me or Ed to go under the clock in both cars. there is a key difference in theoretical disparagement versus the obvious one.