Cadillac XTS

[anova]

I have quite a collection. They're either restored or crushed.

With the exception of one terrible Mercedes.

And some that I've given to family members. I'm 72 after all.

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

A man after my own heart

[Engelman]

If power is the only thing you care about, and that seems to be it...you shoulld buy a Chrysler 300 SRT...big car, big power, RWD, and a beautiful interior...........

You stated your description of what a Cadillac SHOULD BE, what SHOULD a Lincoln be....certainly not a Ford Taurus, and also smaller than the XTS. I have a friend who has a 2011 Taurus SHO, (same car as the MKS), until you mash the gas pedal to the floor, engaging the Turbos, it runs the same as the XTS, only the XTS has better ride, handling, and the other amenities I mentioned....

That's the thing, I can wait a little while, a few months to buy another car, but GM apparently won't tell us when we they will release an upgraded powertrain. I'm surprised that they didn't have the foresight to realize that there would be plenty of buyers like me with cash in hand who would buy their product in an instant if the car was conceptually complete. A Cadillac is supposed to be a large, comfortable luxury car with competitive power. Not an "almost there, buy this for now, come back in a few years" 90 percent car that Kerkorian described.

[Engelman]

..."Cadillac isn't quite there yet", and Lincoln is.....no V-8 in the entire line-up,no RWD, no Onstar, no Coupe, no Wagon, nothing to compete with the ATS, and wait until the ATS-V lands, not to mention the new CTS, ELR, and Escalade, all coming next year. Then the ATS Coupe, and the "flagship" Cadillac, which begins testing at "the ring" next year.............................

...............yea, buy the MKS, then hold your breath.....

Sheesh,let the man/woman buy an MKS!... Cadillac isn't quite there yet,that's not Anova's fault it's GM's. How long before or even if the XTS gets the TTV6?.....

[b4z]

Some of the comments on the xts are coming from people who clearly haven't driven it.
The fwd xts weighs only 100 lbs more than a cts with the same 3.6l.
Yes, the xts has taller gearing but a 0-60 time below 7 seconds is good.
I have driven the ford products and they have some nice features and a nice feeling to them
But there is no way I would buy a mks that is 1 second or so faster to 0-60 over an xts.
The xts is just a nicer overall car in my opinion.

[b4z]

Keep in mind that most of the comments on here about the 3.6l srx have been very favorable
In terms of its power and acceleration. The srx is heavier than the xts, but with slightly better gearing, so how does an engine that is nice in 4200-4000 lb srx become inadequate in a 4000-4200 lb xts?

[megeebee]

Or is the 2014 Impala a cheap XTS?
How much value does CUE and mrc add to the value above an Impala or LaCrosse?

Thank you.

I love folks that say the XTS is a gussied up version of a car that isn't even on the market yet.

[pont3]

I'm not in the market for an XTS or any other car of its ilk. At 53yo, I'm a lifelong GM lover and I panned the XTS for the same reasons. First and foremost, this car should have been rear wheel driven with at least a V8 option. Additionally, I thought this car mirrored the MKS's silhouette and for the most part offered little visual distinction. BUT..........

After seeing these out on the road, the car has a presence offered by few other cars today. It looks SUBSTANTIAL with a serious upscale vibe. Personally, I won't buy a Malibu unless it has a V6, and I won't buy a Cadillac without a V8. But for those indifferent about their car's propulsion systems, I'd definitely recommend the XTS. I'll take a NA V8 over a TTV6 any day.

[jAustin]

power is significantly better in the MKS with more usable power throughout the RPM band.

Good remark--this is what makes a car's power delivery feel luxurious or not--a flat power band; not necessarily big HP numbers.

[hrcslam]

I'm not in the market for an XTS or any other car of its ilk. At 53yo, I'm a lifelong GM lover and I panned the XTS for the same reasons. First and foremost, this car should have been rear wheel driven with at least a V8 option. Additionally, I thought this car mirrored the MKS's silhouette and for the most part offered little visual distinction. BUT..........

After seeing these out on the road, the car has a presence offered by few other cars today. It looks SUBSTANTIAL with a serious upscale vibe. Personally, I won't buy a Malibu unless it has a V6, and I won't buy a Cadillac without a V8. But for those indifferent about their car's propulsion systems, I'd definitely recommend the XTS. I'll take a NA V8 over a TTV6 any day.

I understand your quarrel with lower displacement. But, today's engines are very impressive. Look at the HFV6 3.6L in the Cadillac XTS vs the mammoth 500cid V-8 from the 1970 Cadillac. The 1970 500cid was rated, in 1970 at 400hp gross to 360hp gross in 1971 by GM (to lower insurance rates) without any changes. Then came 1972 where the 500cid engine got SAE ratings that dropped it from 360hp down to 235hp (yes we have 4 cylinders in FWD sedans absolutely out powering that awesome Cadillac motor of yore; seriously I love the old Caddy 500). See quote below.

The result of the new rating system was a dramatic drop in advertised power. The rated output of Cadillac Eldorado's mammoth 500 cu. in. (8.2L) V-8, for instance, dropped from 400 gross horsepower (298 kW) in 1970 to 360 gross horsepower (269 kW) in 1971, a drop of about 10%. The engine was basically unchanged for 1971, but the switch to SAE net ratings reduced the rated output to only 235 net horsepower (175 kW). (Although GM did not quote a net horsepower rating for the higher-compression 1970 engine, it was probably 275-285 hp (205-213 kW).) In some cases, actual output did drop during this period, mostly due to emissions-related changes, but the reduction in as-installed power was generally far less drastic than the numbers suggested.

The current HFV6 in the XTS is pushing a SAE 304hp, or 69 more SAE horsepower than that old 500cid. Yes, that 500 cid had 365 ft.lbs of torque over the XTS's 264 ft/lbs of torque over 100 more ft/lbs from that extra displacement. But, there is no doubt that that new little V-6 is quite impressive when taking history into account.

That said, give the XTS AWD a new LT1.....

[CarFreak77]

You should be thankful You have choice of American luxury cars. I can choose only from Germans, bloody Lexus and Jaguar.

[pont3]

[QUOTE=hrcslam;2607943]I understand your quarrel with lower displacement. But, today's engines are very impressive. Look at the HFV6 3.6L in the Cadillac XTS vs the mammoth 500cid V-8 from the 1970 Cadillac. The 1970 500cid was rated, in 1970 at 400hp gross to 360hp gross in 1971 by GM (to lower insurance rates) without any changes. Then came 1972 where the 500cid engine got SAE ratings that dropped it from 360hp down to 235hp (yes we have 4 cylinders in FWD sedans absolutely out powering that awesome Cadillac motor of yore; seriously I love the old Caddy 500). See quote below.



The current HFV6 in the XTS is pushing a SAE 304hp, or 69 more SAE horsepower than that old 500cid. Yes, that 500 cid had 365 ft.lbs of torque over the XTS's 264 ft/lbs of torque over 100 more ft/lbs from that extra displacement. But, there is no doubt that that new little V-6 is quite impressive when taking history into account.

Yes, you're absolutely correct, however, as a high school kid I drove my father's four year old 1970 Cadillac, and NO one complained that the engine was coarse above 4k rpm, and you didn't have to rev it to 5k to feel the response. Further, Cadillac didn't have a corporate engine as the only engine offered. I'm not saying Cadillac should have an exclusive engine, but to have the same engine as a Chevy as its ONLY option is absurd. This car should have a powerful V8 period. I know that MOST people willing to shell out 50 or 60k large don't list power as a priority, but if Cadilac wishes to be the standard of the world, it simply cannot come up short in the power department.

As much as I hate magazine reviews, there's no denying that a positive review would help sales. My dad's 1970 Cadillac wouldn't have won many stoplight races, but it wouldn't have been embarrassed, either, it would have held its own.

As a GM lifer, I wish only the best for GM, however, offering the only engine that is available even in a rental Impala is downright embarrassing. That is truly sad.

[GM Customer Service]

True. After some thought, I'm willing to wait it out a little longer, at least until the Detroit Auto Show to see what's coming up. This is an exciting time for American industry.

Anova, I see I missed an interesting discussion while I was out of the office for the holidays! I just wanted to let you know that I'm available via private message anytime you have vehicle questions while browsing around and considering your options. Very happy to see that you're considering a Cadillac!

Best,

Katie
GM Customer Service