SergeyM

Has anybody driven 2004 the Cadillac CTS? In the latest issue of R&T it took the first place beating BMW 530, E320 and all other 6 cyl competitors. Volvo S80 was the last and the only FWD car. I will be getting a new car soon and kind of decided on TL but I never driven the CTS. BTW, all other qualities being equal I would prefer to buy American. It seems that CTS with sport and luxury packages is about $2K more that TL A-spec. You get RWD and Cadillac name vs Japanese reliability. So what are your thoughts?

1SICKLEX

CTS is a GREAT driving car. I have not driven it with the new V-6 but it's to be very, very solid. I just can't get past that interior but it's a tradeoff I guess. Styling looks sad too unless it's the CTS-V.

wonder

Well for one thing the TL is built here in Ohio. The CTS is probably an American/Canadian combo. So buy American probably means TL.

roadman

Motor Trend May 2004

TL vs. CTS vs 9-3, vs G35

G35- 1st
CTS - 2nd

GM almost always has 0% loans and rebates which Acura never has.

It is a smaller car than the TL

It never hurts to test drive it and see what offers are available at the time you are making your purchase.

DMZ

Here's the ratings list from the February 2004 issue of Consumer Reports. You'll see the CTS was 'Not Recommended' due to its history of reliability while the TL was their absolute favorite.

roadman

DMZ,

Wonder is they ever had an "02 or '03 TL, they had huge tranny problems. Mine had 4 alone.

Check out that forum and there are thousands of posts about tranny, rotor/brake problems for the TL

Isn't the CTS engine/tranny new this year ?

DMZ

Gratned on the pre-'04 trannies. CU gives that reliablity rating for the number of overall reported types of problems, not just 1.

catsailr

Also, to get a CTS equipped similar to the TL with Navi, the sticker price is $43,700.

rick955i

The CTS is built in Michigan at the Delta River facility, GM's newest and most advanced assembly plant.

vtechbrain

The CTS is an agile but slower candidate (except for the V, DUH). Interiors and overall comfort are a notch below. Quality, from reports, is questionable.

rick955i

Also, having driven both, because companies are/were clients of mine, the Acura engine is light years ahead of the even the ew V-6 from GM as far as smoothness and refinement. The cadillac is a fine handling car, build quality and chassis stiffness are comendable...the only drawbacks I can see are: 1) Interior styling 2)Exterior styling (personal preference) 3) Street Cred...Cadillacs still seem to be a bit Pimp, Bling Bling. Just the other day i saw CTS with a phantom top and a gold billet grill...GM has to put an end to dealers doing this to cars before I would even consider the hot new STS. Also, a buy back plan wouldnt be bad either, get all f those crapy 80's and 90's Cads off the street, bring the image up!

jrogers345

Yes, I drove the CTS and liked it but....... I wanted a 6mt which it only comes in the standard, stripped down version. From there, you then go with the optional packages and ONLY auto trans. The packages also made the price really jump up. And one of the options that comes with the packages is the moon roof that actually lowers the height of the roof - less head room inside. My husband who is tall had to sit with his head tilted to the side, even then hitting the headliner. So that made it completely out of the running. I have to say, though, that their pearl white color was a lot nicer than the TL.

jonro

I test drove the CTS. It was nice, but comparably equipped, costs about $10,000 more than the TL. I feel the TL has a sportier, stiffer feel. The interior is significantly nicer in the TL. Both have nice exteriors; preference is subjective. At the same price (with Navi, etc.), it might have been a contest.

SergeyM

I live in NYC so I am going to get an auto tranny car. Now from experience (owned 02 TLS) I know that auto TL brakes are not that good. So A-spec becomes a must too or very desirable just to get better brakes. If you consider an auto TL/Navi + A-Spec, we are getting close to $39K. I priced CTS using carsdirect.com and got $40,991 for 1SC + Navi. We are talking about $2K difference. As to the image. Everyone I know drives Japanese, some (including me) drive European. So getting a Caddy should be a new and hopefully exciting experience.

Hal

I enjoyed test driving the CTS.. with the sports package it was both tighter and smoother than the TL. It was decked out like a mofo too.. good interior, compared to a Volvo, but it doesn't touch the TL's interior. Of course it has a little less power, but the main thing about it is that it's much more expensive and.. it wont last you half as long as a TL.

Bobzmcishl

I test drove the CTS and even with my GM retiree discount, the car was still more expensive than the TL and with less horsepower. Also the engine seemed less refined. I also didn't like the idea of paying $ 800.00 more for red color, which is very similar to Redondo Red on the TL. The major advantage with CTS is RWD. I also liked the look of the CTS. It has a unique style. The TL is nice looking but very similar to other Japanese sedans. I agree with Consumers. The TL is the absolute best value in this price segment even with FWD.

1SICKLEX

The new Caddys are way to expensive. I agree. The SRX is selling slow b/c of this too. They are pricing their car as if they don't have 30 years of catching up to do.
TL>CTS, IMO. I think Caddy, I think golf carts, bling bling, depends and retirement, not the image I want in a car.

savageTL

Technically CR does not rate value leaders, that is rather subjective and they try to avoid that, even trying to objectify the subjective.

When it comes to rating cars you kinda have three views, the overall head, the overall heart and the cost to own. The main stream car mags are 90% heart, CR is 90% head and Intellichoice is the cost to own info king. CR loves the TL for safety and reliability, enthusiast mags are luke warm due to the FWD platform (in the class) and Intellichoice sees it as having a excellent cost to own but the ES330 is better (by a smidge). The CTS is viewed quite differently by the three. In the end I think the CTS is a poorer compromise of head and heart than the TL, it is a better performer than the CTS and has the "head" portion all wrapped up as well. For me the TL is a significantly better choice unless your heart likes the styling much more.

As for brakes that is an interesting issue. Quite franky the Brembo binders up front are really more show than go on the street (which is true for 99% of brake upgrades on modern cars), though feel may be better the Brembos they won't decrease stopping distance on the street though they will reduce fade at the track. Now I am sure someone is thinking but XYZ shows the manual car stops in less distance than the auto car. Here it is the better balanced/stiffer suspension, lower overall weight, (and POSSIBLY less unsprung weight) and the summer tires specced on test drive manual cars that makes the difference. Think about this IF your brakes can stay in the ABS intervention range during a full panic stop (the TL auto can) then even a 4 wheel Brembo BBK with 15 inch rotors will not reduce the distance, grip is the limiting factor here not the brake system. So if you want better braking distances with the auto TL look to performance tires first, it will make the biggest difference. Then unsprung and sprung weight. It is hard to determine how much the suspension will do without knowing, the effective brake bias established via ABS during most of the stop, depending on if more rear bias could effectively be used a stiffer suspension can keep more weight on the back allowing the rear brakes to share more work etc etc. In the end a good summer tire will gather more stopping gains than the rest of the A-spec "kit" and will be much cheaper.

Vandy

SergeyM

I like you post very much but do not agree with the above part of it. You are talking about traction between tires and the road. But there is also the brakes ability to stop/slow down the wheels. Better brakes mean better ability to slow down/ stop the wheels, not just resistance to fade. Tires should match brakes and putting better tires on the car with weak brakes will result with no ABS intervention, no traction loss, but will not reduce the braking distance. In a sense it is very similar (though opposite) to acceleration. With a strong engine you need matching good tires and even with good tires you can still lose traction when accelerating. With a weaker engine and great tires you will never lose traction but you will not accelerate any faster because the engine is you bottleneck, not tires.

savageTL

I also agree with your point BUT your point assumes a VERY weak brake system. I stand by my statement, put high performance tires on the auto and the brake system will STILL be able to produce lockup in the tires causing ABS to kick in. A "better" braking system does have more potential to slow the tires BUT I am telling you few modern cars, especially ones that even have a taste of performance, have a weak enough brake system to be overwhelmed by stock width DOT rubber. My play/track car is an E46 M3, the weakest stock system on the car for the track is the brake system, however even with ultra-high performance tires with a significant contact patch you don't get NEAR overwhelming the stock brakes on the street, where it returns near super car level stops. Even my Brembo 15"/14" BBK did not reduce street stops at all, in fact with even moderate track pads the distance is increased! Bottom line any BBK will do nothing for street stops (feel is a different story but is again more of a track issue), if you don't beleive me go to any forum where the majority of people track their cars and query them. BBKs are for Bling and the track, plain and simple. Tires will make the single largest difference in stopping distance on the street on the auto TL. In the end you are simply mistaken about how effective the brake system is on the auto TL.

In a different point of view don't forget the only thing the auto TL gets braking wise with the A spec is pads, you can get that for a few bucks cheaper by themselves!! Plus, the extra rotational mass (assumed I have seen no numbers) of the A spec wheel/tire combo will have a negative impact on braking. The best part of the A-spec for street braking is the tires. So even if you don't beleive me that the current auto TL's braking is limited by tires you have to admit that the most the Acura engineers think it needs are pads to equal the A specs stickier rubber. My guess is the pads may actually increase stopping on the street but again help at the track.

Vandy

TLXLR8S

if you look at the prices the TL is the cheapest of them all.

jonro

You could probably replace the brakes on the 5AT with Brembos for a fraction of the cost of the entire A-spec package. I don't agree that the 5AT brakes aren't good. They just aren't as good as the Brembos. How many 60 --> 0 panic stops will you need to do in NYC? There probably won't be much of a difference will you notice in a 40 --> 0 stop. I'm comparing dealer price to dealer price. Discounts are available on both cars, but probably more of a discount for the CTS. Anyway, I'm not trashing the CTS. It's a very nice car. I just prefer the TL (obviously, since I bought one).

kleck

I test drove the CTS and liked a lot of things about it. My Dad ended up buying one which I’ve driven several times. The car I test drove had a few annoying rattles which my Dad’s does not have. Overall the CTS is a very nice car. It’s fast and very quiet (except for the few rattles on the test drive). Shifting is very smooth and the handling is what you would expect from a sport sedan (not at all like a traditional Cadillac).

What I didn’t like? I thought the dash was kind of cheesy. It looked somewhat cheap versus the bit of refinement you would expect on a vehicle in this category and compared to the TL. Also, the amenities (which Cadillac is known for) were not what you would expect. For example, the buttons on the steering wheel are labeled 1,2,3,4. What is that? How about giving them meaningful names that describe what they do? I know this is minor but it was an annoyance for me. The TL has far more amenities than the CTS and they are laid out in a more attractive and logical fashion. And this brings me to my second point about the CTS.

Equipping the CTS similarly to the TL will cost you. The CTS has several options that when added up to come close to the CTS, will add about $10k to the price of the TL. When you get down to it, the TL is a much better value. Bottom line, you get a lot more for your dollar. Now that statement begs the question of long-term value. It’s way too early to tell given the newness of both vehicles. But if you look at the overall resale value of Cadillac vs. Acura, the difference is significant. Overall, Acura’s lose their resale value much slower than a Caddy.

Buy either one and I’ll bet you’ll be happy. I think the differences come down to personal preference of the vehicle and cost.

digital_b

the cts styling is subjective. the comment about the at tl brakes is just stupid. the cts has a cheesy interior like all the current caddies. saying the previous gen tl has bad trannies doesnt mean the current gen does. caddy resale value is terrible. the cts does not say 'pimp bling bling'. it says weird little caddy. never once heard a real human use the term 'street cred'. thats lame.

rick955i

I didn't say the CTS was Pimp and Bling Bling, I said Cadillacs were, it is an image they are trying to get rid of. As for not hearing a "real human" use the word street cred, I don't doubt you haven't run across a whole lot of real humans in Springfield, MA!!!

VQ35DE

hey-hey-hey!! The Nissan Maxima 3.5SE is the only non-upscale nameplate in that category. ...moving up in the world. Holla!!! j/k

RM44341

I give Cadillac a lot of credit for stepping up to the plate with a competitive product. However I never considered the CTS for three reasons. The first is the styling. As everyone says, you either love it or hate it. I hate it. The second is GMs reputation, they need to establish a track record of good design and quality before I'll consider them. Last is price. Detroit continues to think they can compete with high end brands by building something and pricing it up there with the Germans. The need to take a lesson from Lexus when they launched their brand. Build a fine car and then significantly undercut the competition on price, if they have a fine product they will build market share and a following that will last them well.

Monte TLS,MAX

Consumer Reports donot base on MFG/Brand they base their comparisons on price/equipment/mission etc.

antonioe

kosh2258

Yeah, but the R&T test was for the 6 cylinder mid models vs. the top end cars in their respective lines.

I'd be very skeptical of any test that rated the BMW 5 behind the 300C. I'm familiar with both 6 cylinder engines and the Chrysler 3.5 doesn't even begin to come close to the BMW inline 6 for refinement or performance.

And that's styling aside, mind you, since I think both the new 5 series and the 300C look like they were severely beaten with a fugly stick. :yack:

antonioe

After waiting two months for my TL 6MT Navi, I test-drove the CTS-V (not an easy thing to do - they told me they did not offer test drives on the -V, I did a 180 to get out of the dealership and they changed their mind). While $15K more, it was still within my affordability range (as were the BMW M3 and Audi S4, but the quality horror stories scared me).

The -V has a lot of torque, but even under mild acceleration the engine runs out of RPM very easily, in spite of the double-overdrive Borg-Warner... I mean, Tremec T56 transmission (by the way, I was NOT impressed by the shifter used in this installation). Braking was OK, steering felt definitely heavy (I don't mean the steering wheel effort, but the overall car "feel" when maneuvering - perhaps related to its relatively long wheelbase and negative rear wheel camber?)

The interior quality was very disappointing . Gadget-wise it compares with the TL/Navi, and of course it comes with Onstar, which some people love and some (like me) hate :argue: . Styling is, to put it mildly, controversial . Ride comfort was very good, but engine noise - mostly intake - definitely higher than the TL's.

Overall, it's acceleration vs. maneuverability and interior finish quality. Had both been the same price, it would have been a contest, but for $15K more, the CTS-V looses big time in the bang-per-buck department - hence I stuck with the TL :worship: .

digital_b

there have been reviews in the mags of the cts-v even to the point of the authors saying they wanted to like the car. its not finished was the consensus and its crude. and someone from redunant bitch CA talking smack about my town? youre a cliche at best dude. the point I made about people using non real life terms like 'street cred' obviously went past you. things you read about in periodicals with 'writers' using 'magazine/newspaper terms' that generally dont occur in reality. there now you should be able to understand.

Gronk

I test drove one while doing my pre-purchase research.
The strongest feeling I got from the car was that it suffered from multiple personality disorder. It gave off a very "designed by committee" feeling.

Here's what I mean:

Outside looks - Mean. Hard lines and sharp edges, and kinda looks like a bulldog that is ready to tear off an arm. Definite appeal to a younger car buyer who wants something different.

Inside looks/feel - Plush, luxurious. Sunday afternoon drive in the country with grandpa. The embroidered leather seats and the polished wood section of the steering wheel mainly gave it that feel.

User interface - modern retro. Monochrome amber computer displays feels like a VT100 terminal from 1989. But the functionality is modern. The layout was a bit cluttered and confusing, too.

Performance and driving feel - fast and sporty. The thing got up and went in a hurry, and I never felt a loss of control, even on ice. But it did so pretty quietly, more like a luxury car than a muscle car.


So no two aspects of the car really lined up with each other. I mean, none of the aspects were that bad really, but the whole thing didn't feel like it all fit together quite right.
And there were several things I didn't like, that for a car for that price, I damn well better like them.

Overall, the price (including the desired options) was well over my budget. And besides, the Acura beat it out on nearly all the stuff that I cared about.

Zeuser

I also noticed it's the least expensive on the list. And as you all know, most of these other cars need more $$$ to get equipment that's STANDARD on the TL.

TL = Best bang for the buck.