Advertisement
Find a Car
Go!

Cadillac CTS Coupe: Build It or Burn It?

Follow Marty



Cadillac's CTS Coupe was one of the darlings of the Detroit auto show this year. And from what we've seen on the ground in spy photos--and in the latest round of pictures released by General Motors--it looks like GM's plan is full steam ahead to produce the two-door for the 2010 model year.

We don't have much doubt that the Coupe would be a hit--but still, we'd like to see a little less hatchback look. From some angles, the concept looks like the old Honda Accord two-doors from the 1980s. That's no backhand complement--but coupes to us have a defined decklid, where the CTS Coupe doesn't.

That, and the bigger question--how would you punctuate it, CTS Coupe-V or CTS-V Coupe? Or neither?

Tell us what you think of the Coupe, its chances for production and whether you'd have to have the V-Series edition to choose Cadillac over a BMW or a Benz.
Advertisement
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (38)
  1. Bob Lutz Fruit is sweet! Build this car. A gorgeous 2 door Coupe has a market, look at the 3 Series. The CTS-C is bigger for us boomers that are ahem... advancing in years and beltline. This is a strong car.

    No comments Thor
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. I would prefer more of a notchback roofline - although maybe this is their take on the 1949 Cadillac Club Coupe Fastback
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. My guess for a name, if keeping with the current theme, is CTC and CTC-V.

    Love the coupe, as do most of us over at tCE. I'm not sure I'll swing one new, but this will certainly be on my list to pick up after a couple years of depreciation.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. The coupe looks incredibly obese. I must say I have only seen it in pix and not up close, but it does look crude and fat, very unlike the (usually sleeker than sedans coupes) of other makers.

    I have driven the first gen CTS and was very unimpressed with its god-awful cheap interior, hard plastics that you do not find in civics and accords that cost less than half the price. Hopefully they have wised up in the 2nd gen.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. having owned all three i would opt for what ever bmw has.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. You'd definitely be impressed by the second-generation car, Thor. The biggest complaint I have is getting in and out of the rear seat. The interior is probably the best GM has, and it has one of the best iPod/Bluetooth couplings too (this coming from someone who still can't get Ford's SYNC to work with his iPhone).
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. "Marty Padgett Says:
    March 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Thanks for your reply, Marty.Keep us well informed.

    You’d definitely be impressed by the second-generation car, Thor. "

    One could get an upscale interior in the first gen, but then the price creeped from $30k to $40k.

    "The biggest complaint I have is getting in and out of the rear seat. "

    I wouldn't be surprised, since the bigger STS latest model also was rather tight in the back, and the CHinese got a special long version (sort of an exec car)

    "The interior is probably the best GM has, and it has one of the best iPod/Bluetooth couplings too (this coming from someone who still can’t get Ford’s SYNC to work with his iPhone)."

    GM has sure made significant progress after Bob Lutz got some power over the lame designers of buicks etc and took them back to the drawing board. The latest Malibu is another good example, delaers sell it for more than the much larger Impala..
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. The car looks phenominal! The hoodline is a little tall, making an artificially tall grill; but hardly something I'd want to "burn" I'd much rather make sure to be the first to put this in my garage!

    Great work Cadillac!!!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. I absolutely love this car. If they built it, I will buy it.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. The fact that it's unusual and striking will make it successful. BMW's and Mercedes' coupes are boring, predictable and sell well in spit of (or because of?) that. Cadillac needs to do this car as it is. Underdog's have to work twice as hard for twice as long to get noticed. Personally, I love the coupe. It's well executed, could ONLY be a Cadillac and those tail fins...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  11. Build it. Not 3 years from now, but next year.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  12. Love it, but won;t buy it.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  13. I definately agree, dump the Hatchback! I still love the old Lincoln Continentals!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  14. I too don't care for the hatchback profile of the car and if it remains true to concept, I wouldn't buy it and I consider myself in their target demographic being a 3-Series coupe driver but if they give it a more defined notchback profile, I'd consider it.

    The new CTS sedan is a impressive vehicle and that platform combined with an attractive coupe design could be a winner. One turn off for me though is the corporate parts-bin 3.6 litre engine. No matter how good it may be, it is still the same engine that powers lower-end GM products and to me their premium brand products should have exclusive Cadillac engines that are somewhat more sophisticated than what propels vehicles sold at a lower price point.

    BMW succeeds because their products are throroughbreds and Cadillac needs more purity in the bloodlines if they want to be taken seriously as a competitor. For the record, so does Acura, Infiniti and others. When one buys a Cadillac, it should be an authentic premium car with premium parts not shared with Malibus.

    So that's my recipe for a CTC or CT-Coupe; create a more notchback profile and give it a unique Northstar-like powertrain.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  15. I love the "fastback" roof and tail. Anybody remember Ferrari's 250 GT SWB—GTO? A "notchback" turns it into a two door sedan.
    I do think it is obese. Both the coupe and the sedan could have every top surface lowered two inches. Then do a more modern seat that lowers the passengers along with the cowl.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  16. Love it!! Showed it to my wife and she immediately suggested we trade our 2008 CTS in on it when it comes out. She's already talked to our salesman at the dealership last week. I like the fastback look. Not that crazy about the center exhaust, although the center exhaust looks good on my C6.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  17. I for one think it is a nice car. I just wish gm would create something with better gas milage. There cars are affordable, but the milage always sucks. I'm not looking for toyota milage, but with gas being sd to reach 4 dollars a gallon, can we please see some fuel efficency from american car companies? That will ultimately be there undoing.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  18. Don't give it the CTC name, thats just sort of "common". Call it the CTS Coupe, its more elegant. BMW and MB use 330 Ci for Coupe and MB use CLK for their coupes. The CTS is bigger and has more "prescence". Go with CTS Coupe.

    Thor: Gary Gowger showed me this interior at last years auto show. Its world class.

    Ci2Eye: I agree with what you're saying about the hatchback/notchback coupe look, however, another me too or 3-Series coupe, or CLK will look boring. Also the me-too would look like Caddy is copying them, and say to the mkt, see Caddy is copying the, so why not buy the original. Simply making the current CTS into a 2 door would be a failure. Giving it a roofline similar to mid 70's GM intermediates would be elegant and unique and please go with the fins.

    As all companies quality, performance, and efficiencies improve, you're eventually going to have all cars with similar mechanical layouts because the market will drive the quality there. What will make cars stand out will be style and beauty where people can identify with their cars. This car has it. Thanks Bob.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  19. Build it!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  20. "BMW succeeds because their products are throroughbreds and Cadillac needs more purity in the bloodlines if they want to be taken seriously as a competitor. For the record, so does Acura, Infiniti and others. When one buys a Cadillac, it should be an authentic premium car with premium parts not shared with Malibus."

    My main car is a 98 BMW 740il. Fantastic engine, superb handling and a conservative but beautiful exterior design.

    However, ever since BMW hired that god-awful bangle guy, he really "bangled" the designs.

    I really liked the pre-bangle 3-series (99-05?) and 5-series (97-03) and my 7 (95-01), but all their successors were from bland (new 3 series) to much worse (5 and 7). I hope the new 7 wil return to the original BMW look.

    Acuras have failed miserably because they are rebadged Hondas with few exceptions, and Hondas are good enough so no fool would shell another 10k to have the unimpressive Acura logo instead.

    Infinitis have more bang for the buck, but they too have too much in common with lowly Nissans. Even lexuses are giulty of same sin.

    One little known fact is that the segment of the US auto market that the domestics truly got destroyed is NOT, as you might believe, the mid-price segment, but LUXURY cars. Lincoln and Caddilac used to dominate the sector, with 80% PLus of sales, and now it is exactly the opposite, imports are 83% and doms are 17%!!!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  21. as for improving the mileage of Caddilacs, one word: DIESEL!

    Even sporty BMW sells 67% of its cars with excellent, modern, fuel efficient diesels in Europe!

    With gas fast approaching $4 in the US, GM should do the exact same thing!

    And the big 3 do not have to design any new engines either, they already have several diesels and sell millions of them in Europe!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  22. Yeeeeeehaw
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  23. I saw the CTC (or whatever) at the Detroit Auto Show...thought it looked absolutely amazing in person. In pictures I think it looks nice (not great), but in person it's drop-dead gorgeous.

    The new CTS interior is excellent--most of the reviews out there have said as much. As for me I'd take a CTC over a BMW coupe any day of the week, and that's coming from a BMW fan...!! The BMW's out there just don't have the same presence.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  24. I agree with the article. Dump the hatchback look. Also, keep it long enough to be roomy. Too many small coupes around already.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  25. I think this is one hell of a sexy car. I like the look that GM gave it. As far as the name, I think CTS coupe is perfect.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  26. I say be careful adding this to the portfolio. Many people complained when the Camaro went away, but if there were sufficient numbers of buyers, the Camaro wouldnt have gone away. Same with coupes, look good but not sure how many people talk it but dont walk it when it comes to putting their money down....just a comment, not looking to cause an argument.

    We will see when the new Camaro comes out. Many complained of its demise, I hope they all come back and buy one when it counts. My $.02.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  27. I love the CTS-Coupe and will definitely consider buying one in the future. I own an Infiniti G35 Coupe with a 6 SP Manual and absolutley love it. The CTS Coupe would be the only car I would consider replacing my Infiniti. They should build this car next year...build it!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  28. Thor,

    I agree with you that pre-Bangle BMWs were better looking and part of their appeal was the consistency of design. Whether it be a 3-Series, 5-Series, or 7, there was a BMW-look with signature design elements that were instantly recognizable. And, those design elements were enduring. Whether one looked at a 1980 7-Series or a 1998, the look was quite similar. In Bangle’s attempt to create more artful designs and “reach”, he has lost a bit of the consistency and the timeless nature of BMW’s previous designs. However, the company never completely abandoned its “look” and now seems to be returning to an evolutionary approach rather than a revolutionary one which is cause for cheer.

    Although it is not as much fun for designers who like blank canvases, the benefit to an enduring design approach for consumers is that your four-year old 5-Series doesn’t suddenly look outdated when the new one arrives because the new one still looks a lot like the one your own.

    Despite all their failures in the 80s and 90s Cadillac never lost their signature design elements developed by Bill Mitchell and beginning with the first CTS, Cadillac found a way to re-interpret them for a new generation. The look has now been refined and the latest generation Cadillacs are quite striking but also very true to their heritage. They look unlike anything else on the road and yet like many great cars from the past to wear the wreath and crest. This is vitally important in the premium car business. A high-end car should be timeless like any other luxury good and it should not change with the seasons. Leave the trendy design to lower priced goods looking to stand out but a Cadillac, like a BMW or Mercedes should have a look that is classical and evolves slowly.

    The other strength to me of BMW which Cadillac should emulate is their purity of mission and genuine nature of their products.

    BMW has a credo to build “The Ultimate Driving Machine”. It is an unwavering mission that guides everything the company does. Every product has to be filtered through that lens and every one of them has to live up to that motto. It is hard for a car company to know what to build and how to build it unless they know who they are and what they stand for.

    Cadillac has been a bit lost on this front. In their heyday, Cadillacs were more akin to today’s Lexus models than anything wearing the blue-and-white propeller. They were smooth, quiet, silent and supremely pampering. A car to take on your favorite canyon road at high velocities never wore Cadillac’s crest. Today, they have lost sight of that in a quest to catch BMW and while all car enthusiasts welcome the change, they are a bit off message. They are being a bit untrue to themselves. By tradition a DTS is on message but a CTS-V isn’t. One could argue that today’s buyers don’t want to be pampered and Cadillac is changing which is likely true but how does one explain the Chevy Avalanche clone called Escalade EXT? The point is there is no defining philosophy for Cadillac today. It’s as if they are torn between the traditional pampering ideal they once favored which is now brilliantly exemplified in Lexus models and some new-found Autobahn charging notion cribbed from BMW with a little bit tough truck thrown in for good measure. Cadillac needs to define who they are mission-wise like they have design-wise and they need to be very focused on that ideal.

    The other strength of a BMW is that every engine, spring, nut, bolt, etc. is designed for a BMW and not for anything less. Each product they build whether it be a 1-Series or a 760Li doesn’t have to share its parts with a mass-market product that must be sold at a prescribed price point. Even with the launch of MINI, BMW has maintained that standard. They’ve kept the two pretty separate philosophy-wise, design-wise and content-wise which is a huge plus in my opinion.

    Cadillac’s CTS needs its own unique engine. Thankfully it isn’t sharing its platform with more pedestrian Chevrolet models but it does share the heart-and-soul; its engine with the $20,000 Malibu. If Cadillac ever gets back to being a tier-one premium brand, it must be authentic and its parts must be largely unique.

    Cadillac is moving in the right direction product-wise and the new coupe is a step forward but I'd give it more of a notchback profile and then establish focus for the brand and beg GM for more product and component sovreignty. Those are the next steps needed for a true renaissance.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  29. This is the sweetest coupe. The interior should stay intact!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  30. Looks Good got to be a winner
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  31. I like the "fastback" look of the couple. Reminds me of the more recent Bentley Turbo R. Its a nice execution of the recent design language. The worst thing they could have done was to create a two door CTS, as opposed to a true coupe.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  32. Build it in both versions, but find a way to include a turbo diesel.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  33. I like the fastback - almost always prefer them. However, it seems that most Americans don't, and for that reason, Cadillac should build only a notchback.

    With very few exceptions, premium cars do not come as fastbacks.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  34. Kids these days.... That's not a "hatchback" it's a fastback!

    The car has arresting street presence, being both chunky in a modern way, and sleek at the same time. The interior of the '08 CTS assures the coupe's interior will be competitive against all comers. This is an American coupe with the distinctiveness and confidence we usually see only come from Italy.

    It's going to look (and be) sensational alongside my XLR-V.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  35. DUDE

    what the hell do you mean how will you punctuate it?

    the CTS could stand for Catera Touring Sedan. Cadillac never officially stated this, but they have stated that DTS stands for Deville Touring Sedan.

    SO it is safe to say the S in CTS stands for sedan!

    Thus it would be called the CTC

    DUH!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  36. You know what?

    The difference between the old ETC (Eldorado Touring Coupe) and STS (Seville Touring Sedan) was more or less the number of doors it had.

    Why not just give it a whole name all together?

    The 'new' ETC!

    Or something better. Just please put a C at the name of it. CTS Coupe is retarded. Germans will be laughing all the way to the bank if Cadillac gives it an oxymoronic name like that.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  37. Love it. Continue the downsizing! Now maybe a small coupe - perhaps with a diesel, no less!
    Ca - dil -lac! Kick foreign ass.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  38. Sorry, I don't like it at all. DO like the sedan though.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Try My Showroom
Save cars, write notes, and comparison shop with hi-res photos.
Add your first car
Advertisement
Take Us With You!
   
Related Used Listings
Browse used listings in your area
Advertisement

More From High Gear Media


 
 
© 2014 The Car Connection. All Rights Reserved. The Car Connection is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.