[b4z]

I thought I would share my impressions of the '08 Enterpise rental car I drove while my '07 SRX was in the shop for a Ultraview alignment, broken upper glovebox, rearend recall and dead battery + key fob reprogram.

Got a 4700 mile goldish colored CTS with black interior.
First the good:
Great interior, probably the best Caddy has ever done.
Car was quiet and had a solid European feel when on the interstate.
Heavy and solid feeling with only a few creaks.
If the DIC was correct gas mileage was averaging over 20mpg which is about 5 mpg more than the SRX.
Quicker than the SRX, I am guessing 0-60 in the 6.5-6.8 second range.
Strong off the line, and kicked down extremely well at interstate speeds.
6 speed is probably a big factor here.

Now the not so good.
I am very tall(6'8') and can usually fold myself up into any car, but had a few gripes.
My knees blocked the temp guage. Didn't even know it was there until my passenger told me. Vent was cooling my knees, I turned it almost off.
I need a little more knee space.
Large gap between the dash and door window sills. My SRX's is much tighter. Front seats are not as comfortable as the SRX's or old CTS's.
Had a little bit of lower back discomfort.
Major blind spot on the Cpillar. Car really has a coupe profile, almost identical in back window rake to my GTO. Poor visibibity for back seat passengers when looking out the back door windows. Low headroom for backseat passengers.
Rear window visibility is awful also.
I think the upcoming CTS wagon is going to be a visibility nightmare.

Clip clop front suspension. Lots of clunking going on over small bumps. Rear suspension would clunk sometimes also. I wonder if the GM Intermediate Steering Shaft issue has reared it's ugly head again.

The engine could be smoother at higher rpms.

I am starting to think GM is having problems with execution. They just can't seem to hit a home run.

While this car is better than the first gen, it's got some serious space issues that are not appropriate for a mid sized sedan, much less a American sedan.
It is 5 series sized, but not 5 series sized inside.

Caddy needs to make a decision about form over function.
I don't think this car does what it is supposed to do for Caddy. I think if they had given it a few degrees more upright c pillar and half an inch more headroom most of my negatives would go away.

In some respects I think some of the car mags were too kind to the new CTS.
The G8 appeals to me a bit more, even though there are some obvious shortcuts in the interior materials.

 

[Mr. Burns]

There are many who would take form over function, this is the reason why the mercedes CLS exists and is so coveted.

Personally I was pretty impressed with my drive of the CTS, I think if I could choose between it and the competition, it would likely be sitting in my driveway right now. But then again I am nowhere NEAR your height.

 

[silvergoat2k6]

I test-drove a new CTS4 the other day while my wife's car was being serviced...I liked everything about it except it's $45K price tag. Perhaps in a few years I'll be able to pick up a used one for about 1/2 that.

 

[PMC the 1st]

I thought I would share my impressions of the '08 Enterpise rental car I drove while my '07 SRX was in the shop for a Ultraview alignment, broken upper glovebox, rearend recall and dead battery + key fob reprogram.

Got a 4700 mile goldish colored CTS with black interior.
First the good:
Great interior, probably the best Caddy has ever done.
Car was quiet and had a solid European feel when on the interstate.
Heavy and solid feeling with only a few creaks.
If the DIC was correct gas mileage was averaging over 20mpg which is about 5 mpg more than the SRX.
Quicker than the SRX, I am guessing 0-60 in the 6.5-6.8 second range.
Strong off the line, and kicked down extremely well at interstate speeds.
6 speed is probably a big factor here.

Now the not so good.
I am very tall(6'8') and can usually fold myself up into any car, but had a few gripes.
My knees blocked the temp guage. Didn't even know it was there until my passenger told me. Vent was cooling my knees, I turned it almost off.
I need a little more knee space.
Large gap between the dash and door window sills. My SRX's is much tighter. Front seats are not as comfortable as the SRX's or old CTS's.
Had a little bit of lower back discomfort.
Major blind spot on the Cpillar. Car really has a coupe profile, almost identical in back window rake to my GTO. Poor visibibity for back seat passengers when looking out the back door windows. Low headroom for backseat passengers.
Rear window visibility is awful also.
I think the upcoming CTS wagon is going to be a visibility nightmare.

Clip clop front suspension. Lots of clunking going on over small bumps. Rear suspension would clunk sometimes also. I wonder if the GM Intermediate Steering Shaft issue has reared it's ugly head again.

The engine could be smoother at higher rpms.

I am starting to think GM is having problems with execution. They just can't seem to hit a home run.

While this car is better than the first gen, it's got some serious space issues that are not appropriate for a mid sized sedan, much less a American sedan.
It is 5 series sized, but not 5 series sized inside.

Caddy needs to make a decision about form over function.
I don't think this car does what it is supposed to do for Caddy. I think if they had given it a few degrees more upright c pillar and half an inch more headroom most of my negatives would go away.

In some respects I think some of the car mags were too kind to the new CTS.
The G8 appeals to me a bit more, even though there are some obvious shortcuts in the interior materials.

Most of this seems to be related to the driver's humungous physical size. Buying an equally humungous car would solve the problem.
Saying, "I am starting to think GM is having problems with execution. They just can't seem to hit a home run" runs contrary to what every reviewer of this car has said about it. I'm guessing by "home run" he means a CTS that can accomodate his large physical size. Since only 0.000001 percent of the general population is the size of the author of this thread, we can safely assume that this car is not a 'homerun' for 0.000001 percent of the general population.
He says high-end engine isn't very refined sounding, which is inconsistent with what most reviewers of the car have said about the engine note.

Solution to the author's CTS dillema: Buy a 2008 CTS, then have the front driver seat removed and the floorboard custom fabricated to accomodate the driver's seat well into the rear-passenger area of the cabin. It may run an extra $2K or so but would enable the author of the thread to enjoy his CTS as much as Motor Trend, Car and Driver and even Consumer Reports are enjoying theirs.

 

[b4z]

Hardly.
I can get comfortable in 90%+ of the cars out there.
I've driven an Astra and owned 5 Camaros. Driven 3 different first gen CTSs. STS, Tahoes etc. etc.
Owned 2 SRXs and 2 GTOs, Intrigue, Impala, etc. etc.
Fit fine in all of them.
I fit in this car too, it's just close coupled for no good reason.

If you will look at my comments, they were not all about how I fit in the car. Visibility would be an issue for anybody that drives a new CTS.
Sit in the back seat of one, then turn you head and see how well you can see out.

Caddy needs to sell a lot of these cars to survive. if they could have lowered the rake of the back window and increased the headroom by half an inch it would help a lot.

 

[b4z]

I've never heard any mag writer say the 3.6L was smooth at high rpms.
I should know I've put almost 50,000 miles on 2 3.6L SRXs.

 

[FenwickHockey65]

Not everyone is 6'8 either...
Most reviews have said the CTS is pretty roomy inside.

 

[CadiEldo67]

I'm adding this car to my list in a few years, along with a Solstice and G8

 

[PMC the 1st]

Hardly.
I can get comfortable in 90%+ of the cars out there.
I've driven an Astra and owned 5 Camaros. Driven 3 different first gen CTSs. STS, Tahoes etc. etc.
Owned 2 SRXs and 2 GTOs, Intrigue, Impala, etc. etc.
Fit fine in all of them.
I fit in this car too, it's just close coupled for no good reason.

If you will look at my comments, they were not all about how I fit in the car. Visibility would be an issue for anybody that drives a new CTS.
Sit in the back seat of one, then turn you head and see how well you can see out.

Caddy needs to sell a lot of these cars to survive. if they could have lowered the rake of the back window and increased the headroom by half an inch it would help a lot.

Notice that all the cars you previously owned and listed here, they were all large domestic sedans and SUV's.
The CTS was exclusively designed to drive like a German sport sedan, but have the highway ride and opulence of the traditional American luxury car. To necessitate a teutonic ride, you will find a large transmission tunnel and complicated suspension components that thake up a lot of room.
I do find it odd that the CTS doesn't fit you, yet the SRX and STS do despite all three having the same Sigma platform...
As for poor outward visibility, if you were to scrunch down a little, wouldn't that improve outward visibility? I dunno...

 

[ral1960]

Caddy needs to sell a lot of these cars to survive. if they could have lowered the rake of the back window and increased the headroom by half an inch it would help a lot.

I thought the back seat was a little better than the previous generation, in which I couldn't get my head upright. Maybe they lowered the seat cushion. If they raised the whole roof and windows an inch and lengthened the trunk a few inches, the inside would be and feel much airier, they could keep the swoopy roofline, and the trunk would be up to my minimum size. I was hoping the wagon would solve those problems, but it doesn't look like it.

The front seats on my DeVille go back just barely enough for me (6'2" & 34" inseam), not enough for my taller b-i-l or brother. GM didn't fix that problem in 6 years, until the DTS got new seats (without integrated belts). The width and knee room are great without a console, and the armrest is high and wide enough. The Malibu Maxx has a lot of front seat travel, and rear seat room.

My late uncle (6'5" and long legged) had the front bench of his Mercury station wagon moved back a couple inches in the 60's (fortunately my cousins were still short then). I doubt any dealer would do that now because of the liability if the seat came loose in a wreck.

 

[t-rex]

Boy I'm glad I'm short!

But after a long spin in my cuz's new CTS, I noticed too the awful rear visibility, but figured, hey, it's the price you pay for that gorgeous roofline. I'm 5'5" and bumped my head twice getting in and out of the backseat. The top of the rear door seems like it's only about a foot across. Since the CTS is likely aimed at older buyers who don't have kids, or rarely carry back seat passengers, I didn't see it as a huge issue.

The interior was hit-and-miss. I'm short and couldn't get the center a/c vents to blow higher than my forehead. I reckon someone 6'4" or taller would be driving with cold nipples. I didn't notice the gap between the dash and the door panel, but I wasn't test driving the car, and I was busy yapping with my cuz as we headed back to his crib, so there's probably several things I didn't notice.

I only drove it on the expressway and through suburban streets, and it felt taut.

Least impressive thing about the CTS is the engine. Maybe it's from driving BMWs for the last two decades, but I didn't find anything special about it. It had good power, but it didn't "sing" like the M52 unit under the hood of my old heap! I'm quite partial though to the dynamics of an inline six, particularly BMW's.

I found it a very competent car and worth the asking price. I'd put in roughly on par with Mercedes, but it's far from matching BMW's handling, or shall I say the way BMW makes you feel "one" with the car. Technically on par, but viscerally, not quite there yet! The Caddy was sharp, but still there was some disconnection between driver and car, though not severe like in a Lexus or Camry!

It's a desirable car that I'm glad to see succeeding in sales.

***

When I was a small child there was this family of morbidly obese people who lived across from my grandparents. I remember hearing the adults talk about how they had to have a special seat made for the car to allow the Dad, who probably weighed over 500 pounds, to fit behind the dashboard. He didn't drive and his wife, a tiny little woman, couldn't reach the pedals with the seat pushed back, so they had to make special front seats for them both to ride up front! It was a blue Oldsmobile station wagon with a white or grey roof, probably around 1964 vintage (this was the early 1970s), and I remember being amazed as they'd pull away from their house, heading down the street with the passenger's side of the car nearly scraping the street surface!

They were very nice people, and what I remember the most was the Mom always had Rice Krispie Bars, caramel popcorn balls, and huckabucks ready to pass out to all the kids!

 

[ifcar]

Not everyone is 6'8 either...
Most reviews have said the CTS is pretty roomy inside.

No they haven't, and for good reason.

 

[a_v_s]

Notice that all the cars you previously owned and listed here, they were all large domestic sedans and SUV's.

In college, my room-mate was 6'5". He fit perfectly fine in his E36 M3. However, he complained that he could NOT fit in my Grand Prix GTP. He said the seats didn't seam to go back far enough, and he would hit his knees on the lower part of the dash. Granted in his M3, the front seats would touch the back seats, but you would think he should be more comfortable in my GTP than his M3.

 

[mgescuro]

I'm 6'3" and broad shouldered with long arms.
I thought I fit pretty well in the CTS. It had sufficient leg/knee room and shoulder room. It also had pretty decent ergonomics.
Though, I didn't look to see how much room there was in the rear when I set the seat.

Being 6'8", I would say that most cars would be a challenge. You might want to try a Porsche. They are good for tall people.

 

[roteague]

Hardly.
I can get comfortable in 90%+ of the cars out there.
I've driven an Astra and owned 5 Camaros. Driven 3 different first gen CTSs. STS, Tahoes etc. etc.
Owned 2 SRXs and 2 GTOs, Intrigue, Impala, etc. etc.
Fit fine in all of them.
I fit in this car too, it's just close coupled for no good reason.

If you will look at my comments, they were not all about how I fit in the car. Visibility would be an issue for anybody that drives a new CTS.
Sit in the back seat of one, then turn you head and see how well you can see out.

Caddy needs to sell a lot of these cars to survive. if they could have lowered the rake of the back window and increased the headroom by half an inch it would help a lot.

I recently rented a CTS with 5k miles on it - for 10 days. I'm 6'6, and while the temp gauge was close, I wasn't close enough to block it.

Personally, I loved the car. The only two things I would like to see changed are: the window switches are too low on the door, and the seat assembly slides were plainly visible (I would like to see the seat hardware covered up a bit more).

I drove the car just after having rented a Infiniti G35. I felt the G35 had a smoother engine, but prefered the handling and feel of the CTS (not counting I liked the CTS's style much better). I also prefered the Infiniti's in-dask display graphics better than the CTS (I had the non-nav unit). Given a choice between the two, I like the CTS better.

 

[chaseabryant]

Major blind spot on the Cpillar. Car really has a coupe profile, almost identical in back window rake to my GTO. Poor visibibity for back seat passengers when looking out the back door windows. Low headroom for backseat passengers.

I do agree with your observations here. I am only 5'10 at max (I haven't measured myself recently, somewhere between 5'8 and 5'10) and wound up hitting my head when getting in the back seats;

People, you do have to admit that the rear entrance is compromised because of the shape of the C-pillar...

Which does lead me to agreeing about the rearward visibility too. The C-pillar does make for a couple of blind spots.

-Chase

 

[JerryL]

I love the look and finish of this car.....the engine is not as smooth as the G35 I had on my last lease. Otherwise I like it better. I have an Audi A4 Premium now on a short term lease but I'm planning on getting a G8 GTP..... if the dealers will cooperate. The looks and interior of the CTS are awesome but the V8 in the Pontiac wins me back to GM..... Former owner of 12 different SS and Z28 Camaro's.
BTW I'm 6'3" and have no problem with any of these cars. I never had to ride in the back seat of the Camaro's.

 

[BGH]

I don't think GM is very good at maximizing space. I remember there was exterior and interior specs for the G35 and the CTS. The CTS was bigger in every way on the outside, but on the inside the G35 had some bigger measurements and was even or slightly below in others.

I read a review saying the suspension sounded cheap it was on TTAC.

 

[PMC the 1st]

No they haven't, and for good reason.

As usual IFCAR comes back with his agenda. Truth of the matter is, is that the CTS has almost the most interior room than any car in its class. From Edmunds:

When it comes to outright interior space, only the Infiniti has more. In the CTS, there are 98.0 cubic feet of interior passenger volume, and rear-seat legroom is 35.9 inches while rear headroom is 37.2 inches. But with about the same power as the others, the extra pork makes it slower. The benchmark 60 mph comes up in 6.3 seconds and the quarter-mile crawls past in 14.8 seconds at 95 mph.

But when it comes to turning and stopping, the big Caddy has almost as much hustle as its smaller, lighter competition. It recorded the shortest 60-0 stopping distance of the group at 109 feet and tied the Infiniti for the highest lateral grip at 0.89g. It was the only car that didn't exceed 68 mph in the slalom, but its 67.2-mph pass makes it no slouch.

Inside, the CTS is the best-appointed car in the test. Not only have its interior quality and materials leapt ahead of the C-Class and G35, but its design is as striking as it is functional. From the leather-swathed details to the brilliantly capable and easy-to-use navigation and audio system, this is simply a nice car to be inside.

Which all means IFCAR cannot be trusted.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=123235

 

[PMC the 1st]

In college, my room-mate was 6'5". He fit perfectly fine in his E36 M3. However, he complained that he could NOT fit in my Grand Prix GTP. He said the seats didn't seam to go back far enough, and he would hit his knees on the lower part of the dash. Granted in his M3, the front seats would touch the back seats, but you would think he should be more comfortable in my GTP than his M3.

Total, unabashed nonsense.