A Proper Comparo: Cadillac CTS vs Jaguar XF

[stick076]

If the CTS needs a more powerful motor, it definitely should not be an LS motor.

The LS motors are all about power and torque in an inexpensive manner. I would consider them the best motors in the world in that regard. This is not what Cadillac should be. Caddy's should have smaller displacements that rev high while being very refined. If the Ultra V8 is not happening then it should be a turbo V6.

And before the flaming begins, I have a 5.3L V8. It's an awesome motor. Sounds great, very good power, and very smooth. I also have a turbo 4 cylinder VW. When I first got it, I banged it off the rev limiter all the time because it revved so fast and did not even think of shuddering. My last motor is a mid 80s Audi 5 cylinder. I don't think there is a better sounding motor that was ever put in a small car. It's not powerful but runs beautifully with over 200,000 miles.

My point is that if I am going to spend $40,000+ on a car, I want a motor like the Audi or VW. It fits the type of car, it seems more expensive. The GM V8, while an awesome motor, cheapens the car. I would bet that someone who would actually buy the car (not the internet folk) would agree with me.

[jlmartin99]

Originally Posted by jasaero

Winding Road with a proper comparo! It's a good read also. Pretty fair write up between the two. They couldn't even pick one over the other. There are also some nice pictures of two very beautiful cars.

jasaero,

Thank you for the article it is one of the very best balanced comparison reviews I have read lately. I had chance to review XF and I was impressed.

JLM

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by dav305z

You always strike me as someone very particular as to what goes into a luxury car. So my question for you is, would you prefer a smallblock V8 to a twin turbo V6? I know I would, and I bet it's a much cheaper option to boot. But I honestly don't know how it would be perceived.

I would prefer a TwinTurbo V6 over any smallblock in a Cadillac.
I would also prefer the TwinTurbo to be the midlevel, with a higher output version for the high end, with an option for a DOHC V8.

Cheaper is simply not an option for a luxury car.
Luxury is luxury. It has nothing to do with "cheap."

[goblue]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

RUmors are the top-end CTS engine will be a 3.0L Twin Turbo V6 @ 420HP.
Sounds pretty interesting, but it's no V8.

No - its better than a V8.

Before the days of DI and $4.00 gas I'd agree with you, but:

1) Today's best V6s are as smooth as last decade's V8s - which were plenty smooth.
2) Turbos offer the same power as more displacement with better economy.
3) DI eliminates turbo lag.
4) GM isn't going to do DOHC V8s - so its a turbo DI 6 or an LS3 - which do you think is going to look more "advanced"

So, I'll take the slight NVH hit relative to a clean sheet V8 design to get better fuel economy for equal power. And I bet most Americans will too. 40K (the starting point for this type of CTS) is still within the market for people who care about a 20% fuel economy difference.

Now, when you get to the S class level - then I'd take the V8. Gas mileage becomes less of an issue when you are dropping 80K on a car.

[free_energy0]

If Kia tried to do a Jaguar competitor, it would look like the XF. The cars styling just isn't up to what's expected of Jaguar. And in regard to the LS3 in a CTS; if the 3.6 DI is already getting dinged for uncompetitive NVH, imagine how the shivering pushrod motor will fare up against, say, BMW's DOHC V8s.

[AndrewGS]

I wouldn't mind a properly-tuned smallblock in a Cadillac. Bentley's big cars use an OHV V8 (heavily revised in 2001, updated again last year) and they command quite a bit of respect.

[goblue]

Originally Posted by AndrewGS

I wouldn't mind a properly-tuned smallblock in a Cadillac. Bentley's big cars use an OHV V8 (heavily revised in 2001, updated again last year) and they command quite a bit of respect.

Bentley doesn't really have a competitor. Lets say Bentley competed with the Grandeur Motor Company, and Sigma Motors - who also offered cars in the 200K category - and used DOHC V8s and V12s with 8 speed transmissions. You can bet Bentley would be dinged heavily for it in the Robb Report and would be sourcing DOHC engines from Mercedes within 2 years.

Lets say GM took a 4.8L smallblock, added DI, found an innovative way to quell NVH to Ultra levels, and it got better fuel economy than say, BMWs V8s - then I'd say, sure - why not. Provided they branded it something uplevel as well - it would work fine, but I don't see GM doing that anytime soon.

Cadillac doesn't need exclusive engines per say, but they do need exclusive versions tailored to the application with separate branding, better features: ie more expensive versions. I like DI turbos and V6s better than V8s (smallblock or DOHC) in the CTS class because they win the fuel econ game - and thats an important game going forward to lead in.

Don't confuse the raucous LSA in the CTS-V as something your average CTS buyer wants anything to do with. Thats a special situation. The type of person who would put up with that punishing suspension is the same type that will put up with the LSA in a luxury car, and may view it as a plus. Not so with an uplevel CTS. The LS3's exhuast note will not be welcome to the average CTS Cadillac buyer.

[AndrewGS]

Originally Posted by goblue

Bentley doesn't really have a competitor. Lets say Bentley competed with the Grandeur Motor Company, and Sigma Motors - who also offered cars in the 200K category - and used DOHC V8s and V12s with 8 speed transmissions. You can bet Bentley would be dinged heavily for it in the Robb Report and would be sourcing DOHC engines from Mercedes within 2 years.

Still, you never hear anyone complain about their refinement, etc. If it's good enough for the best it's good enough for Cadillac.

Bentley actually reverted back to the OHV RR engine after using the BMW DOHC V8 for a few years. They could use the W12 as they do in the Continental but the 'ol V8 is a better engine. Meanwhile, RR uses the BMW V12.

[Xenon]

Originally Posted by goblue

Bentley doesn't really have a competitor

They do. Its called Maybach and Rolls Royce.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by AndrewGS

Still, you never hear anyone complain about their refinement, etc. If it's good enough for the best it's good enough for Cadillac.

Bentley actually reverted back to the OHV RR engine after using the BMW DOHC V8 for a few years. They could use the W12 as they do in the Continental but the 'ol V8 is a better engine. Meanwhile, RR uses the BMW V12.

Bentley will move onto the Audi W12 and Bugatti W16 engines.
OHV Bentleys are all but gone.

Originally Posted by Xenon

They do. Its called Maybach and Rolls Royce.

Yes and no. Maybach and Rolls compete with Azure and the traditional Bentley. Flying Spur and ConGT compete with the highest of the S-class and CL-class. And even then, they're still higher end.

[Gm786]

The interior of the new Cadillac CTS looks much better designed than the interior of the new Jaguar XF for sure. The XF's interior looks too plain and doesn't have that edgy sharp look the interior of the CTS has. And it cost a little too much. Overall, the CTS is a much better value and it looks better inside and out in my opinion.

[sigma]

I really like the new CTS both on the outside and the inside. It is the statement car that Cadillac needed to show the world that it is once again serious about building true luxury cars that are competitive with the best in the world.

I don't really like the production XF's exterior, I was probably way to fond of the concepts exterior and hoped that it would survive into production. Everything back of the B-pillar did but the front looks way to Lexus-ie for me. However, the innovation that Jaguar has managed for the interior is just amazing. The circular gear selector is just too cool for words, and the whole console has a futuristic Star Trek feel to it starting with the push button start up to the gear selector. The quality look of the wood and the aluminum is just impeccible. I hope that GM puts as much attention to detail on the interiors of forthcoming Cadillacs as Jaguar put into the XF's interior.

[red_rider]

I personally don't see what's wrong with a small block ls# cts. There's nothing unrefined about it from my experience and the sound is great imo. It's not very expensive or massive for its output. Of course it doesn't have that "omgz hp/L!!" benefit, but then again a few "DOHC" decals would fix that

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by goblue

No - its better than a V8.

Before the days of DI and $4.00 gas I'd agree with you, but:

1) Today's best V6s are as smooth as last decade's V8s - which were plenty smooth.
2) Turbos offer the same power as more displacement with better economy.
3) DI eliminates turbo lag.
4) GM isn't going to do DOHC V8s - so its a turbo DI 6 or an LS3 - which do you think is going to look more "advanced"

So, I'll take the slight NVH hit relative to a clean sheet V8 design to get better fuel economy for equal power. And I bet most Americans will too. 40K (the starting point for this type of CTS) is still within the market for people who care about a 20% fuel economy difference.

Now, when you get to the S class level - then I'd take the V8. Gas mileage becomes less of an issue when you are dropping 80K on a car.

Where are you getting this 20% fuel economy difference? I've yet to see the LS get beat in a fuel econ matchup.

And turbos do not have an NVH advantage. You can hear them doing their little whirry thing, where all you need is some exhaust tuning on a small block. See some of the G8 reviews for an example... several reviewers have been surprised by the the unexpected lack of rumble.

I'd rather have a V8 any day.... especially once they DI it, which is surely coming.

[tgagneguam]

A well-presented, well-written, balanced review of two nice cars. It's so refreshing that GM is finally fielding cars-including the new CTS-that don't have to make excuses really in any arena. And it's nice to see reviewers preferring some of the engineering/technology that Caddy's bringing to market. It confirms what I mostly believe to be true: when GM fields credible cars, reviewers will appropriately heap praise.

I still think GM needs to up the performance of this car. 6.5 seconds to 60 mph, despite having AWD, seems a bit leisurely to me. I'm confident that Tom Stephens and his crew are capable of more. Get to it, boys!