I became more than a little confused by his analogies. I understand the running theme of comparing the car to hockey players as the stylistic basis of the article, but -- and maybe this is my fault for not being a hockey buff myself -- I don't really get it. It feels forced, and it distracts from the intent of the article.
I'm not going to criticize the author for his opinions. I don't think the base-engined CTS is going to drop anyone's jaw, really, and to be fair, the edgy, angular styling of the current lineup of Cadillacs has been around for a few years, so it's probably not as eye-popping as it once was. Don't get me wrong, I still like it. I happen to think the CTS is one of the best-looking cars on the market right now, but to play devil's advocate, I understand what he means about the "look" being dated. People, especially a lot of the kinds of folks that purchase things like sport sedans, are always looking to be on the cutting edge of style.
My biggest beef with the article is just that it's poorly written, with drawn-out analogies that make me think that the author desperately wants to be writing for Sports Illustrated, several unclear points (the "buyer misconception" bullet under the list of cons wasn't really addressed in the article at all), and an overall lack of professional style. It's a shame that all that detracts from what would otherwise be an interesting take on the base-model CTS.
What a craptastic article from a numb-nut that wouldn't know automotive journalism if it came up and bit him in the ass.
