Yeah, I agree. I guess they were trying to ensure that at least one car in the lineup would appeal to old fogeys who love their 1998 Sevilles and hate the new CTS styling...or something.Originally posted by Ming+Mar 6 2004, 04:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ming @ Mar 6 2004, 04:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-desmo9@Mar 6 2004, 03:43 PM
People are very comfortable with the edge of CTS and others in the lineup, but this is a step backwards. It's a decent-looking car, but just not distinctive. The CTS has been out for two or three years now. Instead of blazing further down the path of style leadership, which has helped turn Cadillac around, they're back in 1998 someplace. This is no more striking than a Honda Accord with stacked headlamps. Sorry. Bob Lutz at work here...he ordered the softening of the car when he arrived at GM....fortunately the CTS clay had already been frozen.
My father likes the looks of the Cadillacs, but hates the rear end of CTS. "Too busy and too angular".
Let's hope for his sake that the rear doesn't look like this:
The CTS rear should lok less busy now, because we are now using body colored licsense plate pockets, as for the STS rear it looks similar to all the new Caddy's... think DeVille meets CTS.