I left the office early today and was waiting on the cleaning crew to be done at home so I figured I would pop in to the Caddy dealer and check out a new CTS. I have sat in them a couple times but have never driven one, and a coworker of mine traded his ES330 in on one and loved it so I figured I would check it out.

Exterior: First of all I AM a fan of the new Art & Science design theme from Cadillac. I think they are good looking and very unique cars. I love the rear with the wide LED high mount stop lights and the tall taillamps. Very "Cadillac" without looking goofy and retro. I like the grille and all in all the trim is metal and high quality.

Interior: I am not completely thrilled with the styling of the CTS on the inside, it seems to try to hard to me sometimes. It is very well built with excellent materials though. The seats are firm but supportive. The dash layout is good, I'm not a huge fan of pop-up navigation screens because I like to be able to see the map even when I am not using the system. The Bose Audio system is excellent, and I was surprised that Caddy's navigation system was also excellent. Real time traffic worked well, and the system has a nice high-res screen, although not as sharp as in the new Lexus cars. One weird thing, the nav system does not operate when the audio is off. If you want to use the nav...or the screen at all...the system MUST be on and if you don't want to listen to the radio you have to mute the volume. Very strange...

The car is small, significantly smaller than an ES while being slightly larger than an IS...but only slightly. With my seat adjusted the way I like the rear seat is very tight.

The IP is good, optitron style, with an excellent driver info center that allows adjustment of all the things we have to do through LPS.

All in all its too small a vehicle for me no question...

Ride & Drive: The CTS rode well, sporty, but not as sporty as an IS. Power was excellent and very smooth. The car I drove had the 18" wheels which I love the look of but would probably opt for the 17s for a softer ride. On the ride home in the Lexus the ride difference was very distinct, the ES really rode well driving home and it is much more my kind of car.

So all in all I was impressed...definately wouldn't be a purchase for me and I doubt most people who would look at an ES would be interested in one.

What I sat in and REALLY liked was the new SRX crossover SUV. Couldn't drive one, ran out of time, but the vehicle is VERY classy looking and obviously much more spacious than the CTS. I'll try and get by to drive one another time...but I could see myself in that SRX...

Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on Cadillac. GM's only real light of hope. I don't like the 09 back as much as I like the new 2010. The grill rework and the interior improvements definately helped the CTS quite a bit.

I really like the styling of most of the new Cadillac models out. If i believed they'd be as reliable as Lexus' i'd be even more interested though...

Their reliability has really improved as per JD Power and Consumer Reports...

ehh... i'll have to see it for myself

Reliability for a Cadillac has never really been the issue. In my experience the issue was more body rigidity...the engines and transmissions are very reliable.

Cool, good review! I really love the new CTS; I just wonder how spacious it is inside (for the driver, don't care about the back seat). I'm shocked that Lexus still requires you to go in to the dealer to change LPS/CBES when a $20,000 GM can change them from its Driver Information Center.

Its pretty tight...wouldn't work for you I bet.

For as hard to believe as it sounds, the CTS and the IS interiors are about the same size. The CTS might have slightly more space in the rear seats. But's thats about it.

And other than the the Northstar crapping out at 90K miles issue, Cadillac has come a long way in quality.I just can't bring myslef to like GM right now though. I'm still pretty torqued about the whole bailout thing.

Oh yeah, I instantly thought of the IS when I drove the CTS...

I saw a commercial for GM today, something about a 60 day "buy-back" guarantee, and a 10yr 100mi warranty?? It sounds like they're trying at least...

This just might be their ticket now that CARS is done. I've seen warranties like this at a local Buick dealer a couple of years ago. Of course, stipulation for the program was that the owner had to service their car for the entire period at this dealership (how else would they make any money ). Still, there are a lot of buyers sitting on the fence with GM right now. Time for GM to think outside the box. I bet a lot of buyers would love to "see the USA in their Chevrolet" if they could only believe in the product.

It's a powertrain warrentee.

And what's their first real effort? A $50K+ Hybrid Yukon????? 50K?

" Dear American public, thank you for all your money to keep us from closing. In return, we present to you a 15K upcharge for our hybrid effort. Just because we like your money so much. We know that a Lexus RX hybrid is $10,000 less, and so is a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. But please feel good about knowing the people who would like to further seperate you from your money live right next door, here in the good old US of A!"

And then again, there are some who aren't sitting on the fence! Good luck to GM for getting these drivers into their showrooms!

Meanwhile, WAY too much GM stuff is outsourced ... side view mirrors, seats, door assemblies wiper motors, whole engines, etc are made in Canada, Mexico, China etc. Often it's because running factories 'in house' creates headaches besides high U.S. wages ... by outsourcing our manufacturing, we ultimately outsource our pollution / toxins / environmental headaches to other countries too. Then we say we're green, because the 16mpg land barge now gets 19mpg. what a bunch of hogwash.

To be fair...thats not true. The Highlander Hybrid fully loaded is $47k...and the RX450h approaches $60k.

Ok, to keep it fair, you can't compare a fully loaded RX to a Tahoe because you get alot of things on an RX that aren't offered on a Tahoe. And a fully loaded Hybrid Tahoe is +$57k ! So let's just keep this to base sticker pricing. If you wanted an RX hybrid, you can get one for about $44k. And a Chevy Tahoe base starts at $51k. And you still get more "standard features" on an RX than you would on a Tahoe, not to mention the history of Toyota/Lexus compared to GM's less than stellar performance history. And who in thier right mind would like to visit a GM service center over a posh Lexus service estates? It's just plainly clear to me that the Hybrid Tahoe is about $15-20K overpriced. I could understand the bells and whistles taking the price to $50k with DVD players and extra chrome packages and etc. etc. but that just isn't the case here.

And in all fairness, we should only compare the Tahoe to the Highlander, as it should be a Cadillac compared to the Lexus. And a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid starts at $73k! Compare that to a Lexus LX no Hybrid. You almost have to laugh. Lexus has a higher towing capacity, more hp, alot more amenities, and the same MPG's. Not to mention the LX doesn't feel and look like a bus. LOL!!

Here, I'll put in my 2¢. I never had a problem with the quality of a GM product and before my ES my family was strictly GM. My first car was a 2006 Pontiac G6 that I bought brand new and it was a great car. The reason I won't buy one is because of the service, all the GM dealers in my area are known for cheating people in sales and screwing people on service.

Also GM needs to focus on their practical hybrids like the Chevy Malibu. Most of the people who buy Tahoes, Yukons, and Escallades don't care about the gas mileage (plus they slap that ridiculous Hybrid sticker on the side of it). They need something like a Chevy Equinox/GMC Terrain/Cadillac SRX Hybrid, they brag right now about how the regualar gas versions get 32mpg highway, make it a hybrid and they'd really have something going! Well actually, the had it going in the Saturn Vue Hybrid, which they dumped, GM what are you thinking!?!?

I didn't know that GM outsourced many of their parts

They'd may as well outsource ALL of their parts, buy a cheap facility in Asia, build them there, and sell them as Foreign cars (vs American)- maybe American's would buy them then? lol. I think people associate "American built" as being of less quality than "foreign built".

I think it comes down to costs vs profits. It's simply more expensive to build cars here in America because of laws, increased material cost, and greater wages. If you gave GM $20,000 and Toyota $20,000, Toyota can do more with it because they have less costs than GM would have to deal with.

I keep hearing about how Ford and GM are building better quality cars that are in par with Toyota's- all for the same price. My question is, HOW? Unless they're cutting into their profits (which i doubt), i don't see how they can make a better car with the same amount of money...

I don't doubt GM and Ford "could" build a superior car, it's just not economical for them to. They have the knowledge and materials to make a car of really good quality, but it would take them a lot of money to make. If they were to make a copy of the Lexus ES for example, they "could" do it, but they'd have to price it more because their costs would be greater... It's just not possible to compete with foreign car makers!

In terms of costs: I think it's somewhat irrelevant to try, given the factors associated with tarriffs, strength of currencies, etc... If we wanted to, we could make buying any "import" a lot worse!

In terms of outsourcing: Show me a modern day automobile that doesn't contain parts from just about every industrialized nation on earth these days? VW has made cars in Mexico for years. Honda makes cars in Alabama, as does MB. Nissan in Tennessee, Subaru in Indiana, etc.. So, it only makes sense that Ford/GM/Chrystler utilize some of this as well. I'm not sure what BMW and Porsche do, but I'd have to guess something in those cars is probably from Japan, Canada and Mexico too.

In terms of quality......it's a new day, a new dawn, and I think we're in for a pretty neat showing from the Motown Trio. I think they're listening, and I think they got the point last year. You've got to build better, or fade off into the history books. I'm excited to see what Chrystler can do with Fiat in it's boardroom now. Granted, they'll probably be maintenace pigs, but will probably be pretty cool to look at! If I had to make a guess, I would not be surprised if the Honda Accord returns to a "cramped - tin can machine" status when compared to a Taurus. I think Ford is going to dominate soon. They've got some fine looking automobiles out, and coming out. In the land of utter excess "Newport Beach, California", guess what the "it" car is becoming? Now, mind you, this is a place of all the toys, the largest and most profitable MB dealership, Lexus, Lambo, Ferarri, etc..... Guess?

The Ford Flex! Moms are lining up out there to trade in their MB SUV's for this Flex! My boss bought one for his wife, who in turn has influenced nearly all of her friends to get one. These are millionaires.. He says it's absolutely perfect, and likes to drive it just as much as his AMG S series and his 911 Convertible. Our 2nd in command, you guessed it...getting a Flex as well over the new MB GL.

Me personally, I think this new series of Tahoes, Suburbans, and Escalades are the finest looking SUV's on the market, period. I'd LOVE to have one, if I could justify the need. Comparing an RX to a Tahoe, in my opinion, is like comparing an ES to an LS. One is smaller cross-over, the other is a full on SUV on a truck frame. I think the Land Cruiser and LX470 is a better market comparision against the Tahoe and Suburban. Then, look at the cost differences.....

I haven't seen one in person, but the "new" Taurus looks pretty nice from the commercial. Apparently it's got a lot of power- they show it passing an Audi on the commercial...

I also agree the new Escalade's and Tahoes's are pretty damn good looking. If they weren't so expensive and such gas guzzlers, and had better anticipated reliability...

The Tahoe is a much larger vehicle than the RX or the Highlander. You really need to compare the Tahoe to a Sequoia. Comparing a Hybrid Tahoe to a Hybrid Highlander is like comparing a LS600h to a Ford Focus Hybrid because both are hybrids...doesn't make any sense.

The Tahoe starts at $36,965, the Sequoia starts at $38,530. Equip them up and an LTZ Tahoe comes in at $56,240 with $4,000 cash bringing it to $52,240. A similar Sequoia Limited is $56,317...$4,100 more.

Comparing the Highlander to the Chevy Traverse is more fair. The Highlander starts at $29.050, the Traverse starts at $31,224. Loaded the Highlander Limited is $40,720 while the Traverse LTZ is $44,120

If you are going to compare the RX, compare the SRX vs the RX350.

As for the Escalade...I dunno...I see a LOT more Escalades than LXs. Its also not fair to compare the hybrid model to an LX.

An LX loaded with the rear seat DVD is a staggering $82,360

A fully loaded Escalade spec'd out the same is $73,035 with $6,000 cash back bringing it to $67.035, making it $15,325 cheaper.



I'd agree with you except that 90% of the Toyota lineup is actually built in America.

Toyota doesn't have to deal with the UAW which helps, but its not the entire problem. Biggest problem is years of building sh!tty cars that Americans just didn't want.

When do you think Ford and GM will have a reputation similar to that of Toyota? My guess, 5 years.

Keep in mind, our perception is slanted, considering we're all Toyota owners/fans. The closest I've come to owning a Ford was our former 07' Mazda 3 GT, with a Ford engine and transmission. Toyota has nothing on that car, in that segment, that in my opinion can come even close to it. So if their new Focus platform is the same or even remotely close to the Mazda 3, then I'd say they're probably already there in that segment.

Steve, your points are correct. I'm not debating the "magazine" classifications and how they look on paper. I'm more approaching this as a real buyer. And I'm sorry, but when I test drove a Chevy Tahoe a few days ago, (it seats 5) and then test drove a Mercedes Benz ML350, (that also seats 5) and then say to myself that these are both the same price, all I can do is laugh! The Tahoe is no where near the ML in anything other than size. And a non hybrid ML still gets better MPG's than a Hybrid Tahoe. Not to mention the ML has 4matic AWD and a 7 speed sequential touch shift auto trans. Even without going into the office to play hard ball the salesman dropped the price in the lot on the ML to $51K with a PO2 package! That includes touch start, dolby digital surround sound by Harmon Kardon, 40 gig harddrive and hard drive nav with real time traffic, parkmatic, and a whole bunch of other useless but cool stuff on it! And I get to go to a posh Mercedes Benz dealer for service, where I can choose to wait in thier huge living room style area, or cruise the internet cafe while they bring me finger sandwiches and sodas, or I could just choose to take a loaner car to continue my day. GM offers instead, a more truck stop approach, with thier 2 week old coffee/stale newspaper smelling vinyl floored waiting room. A state of the art 1980's 21'' color TV with rabbit ears barely pulling in a local news station all the while listening to that constant digital announcement buzzer on the PA system looking for Bubba Johnson in the accessories department while I lean on a set of gumball machines so my a$$ doesn't fall asleep on the most uncomforatble, barely intact plastic chairs they could find. And no car loaner programs to get around it either. GM needs to step up on alot more before I can honestly call them competitive at $50k + offerrings. The Volt coming out holds alot of promise, and so does the Orlando Concept and the Cruze. But one of my biggest fears about those right now is with the amount of pressure that the government and upper Mgmt. at GM is under to turn out some company saving models, that they don't "cover up" some problems or issues that would be detrimental to production dates and expectations. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm not in any way saying that it is the case here, I'm just airing my opinion about GM.

I almost forgot to tie this back to the SRX. The SRX is a much better competitor and has so much more potential. It seats the same amount of passengers, V8 option, computer controlled suspension, fully loaded, MSRP is $57,000.00 less the same $4000 rebate makes it $53,000.00. And atleast there they have a rug in the waiting room, a 32'' flat screen and give out free popcorn. lol!!

I had no issue either . . . until our '72 Vega fell apart just after the 12 month warranty expired. That cost us a half year's wages back then. Things may be better now, but why take a chance when Lexus often fixes stuff just for good PR ?

Wait....they do? ! I need to get a couple of grand back from Johnson Lexus in Raleigh!!

But smooth, the comparison isn't fair. Buyers aren't going to cross-shop a Tahoe and an ML350...not real buyers. Thats like saying why would you buy a Sienna Minivan when the 3 series BMW is the same price. The statement makes no sense. If a buyer needs/wants the minivan...they aren't even ever going to drive a 3 series BMW. Same is true with the Tahoe, if they want a big American truck-based SUV with a V8 that can tow their trailer or boat...they aren't even going to look at the ML350. The ML350 buyer might look at the Cadillac SRX...or at least Cadillac would like them to.

Demographically the two vehicles go after entirely different buyers an comparing them is pointless. Go drive a Sequoia and compare it...thats fair.

They sell plenty of Tahoes anyways...

It also isn't fair to compare Chevy dealers to Lexus or Mercedes dealers. First of all service at Lexus and Mercedes costs like 3 times what it does at Chevy. Compare a Chevy dealer to a Toyota dealer and that would be more fair...they're pretty comparable. The Chevy dealer is not a luxury car dealer...nor does it pretend to be so. Its just like Ford, Toyota, Honda, whatever.

Toyota has plenty of $50k+ models...and even a $70k model...the Land Cruiser...with the same dealer quality as GM.



Actually the new 2010 SRX no longer has the V8 option and is cheaper. Its FWD/AWD like the RX. The previous SRX was RWD/AWD.

They do if the service takes long enough, and with a GM, that's not uncommon! My dad has gotten a couple loaners due to lengthy warranty work needed on his GMC truck (which is a POS.). They give you a slip to take over to Enterprise (who is on site at his dealer), and they bill directly back to the dealer. It's not like at Lexus or Acura (where after you tell them what you want, they say there's a silver xx outside with the a/c running, that one is for you), but if they need it for a while, they'll give you a loaner. Given that GM is not a luxury dealer, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be selective with doling out loaner cars. I can say, though, the new Malibu is a fantastic car. I drove one (3.5 LT) from Las Vegas to New Orleans, and I really enjoyed the car. Great performance, efficiency, quality, and superb looks in and out.

I've got to agree with Steve, ML vs. Tahoe is apples and oranges. Sure, same prices, but they are going after two totally different customers. Most people get $8k-$14k off of a GM truck/SUV. I think $8k-$14k off of a MB is highly unlikely unless it's leftover or if it's brown or some other undesirable color.

Ummm, actually the ML has a 10k mile oil change interval verses the 3,500 mile interval for GM. So even if it was 3x's more, it works out to be the same as GM's. Lexus and most others are at 5,000 mile intervals. I think BMW also does the 10k mile intervals now, along with that free maintenance program they have. And from all the cost of ownership reports that I've seen, the Tahoe is actually the highest!

I'm a real buyer. And I did. And your right, you can't compare em. It's like comparing an outhouse to your master bathroom. While the outhouse may have a few advantages, I just don't see them being built next to our homes anymore.

I really wanted to give GM a shot. I have to say I was very disappointed. Do me a favor. Go to a GM dealership, open a Tahoe and get in. Look at the center console between the driver seat and passenger seat. I'm not exaggerating this. There is a compartment with a flip up lid on it that in every one I sat in, which must have been atleast 5 or 6 Tahoes where that lid doesn't even come close to fitting properly. One of the Tahoes was missing that lid altogether, and in fact, when I drove the one I did, as we exited the lot and I rolled over the entrance/exit to the street, the bumps caused the lid to flip open! Now I know, it's just this little compartment, but if they did that there, then what about all the other stuff I can't see? (shakes head in disappointment.)

So, if you had a family of 5, and had 60K to buy a vehicle, you mean you wouldn't even consider which one, the Tahoe or the ML350? Why wouldn't you? I think you should really look at the cabin space of both. In fact, the ML350 actually offers more seating space then the Tahoe per seating passenger in head room, and leg room, and the back seats on the ML350 are way nicer than the ones on the Tahoe. The wheel base on the Tahoe is only 2 inches longer. The truck just sits 2 inches higher so it looks so much bigger, and the engine compartment is huge on the GM. The Tahoe does offer more cargo space. But the towing capacity of both are also more than ample for the weekend boat or jetski's. I just don't see these as so far apart as you seem to. And, from what I've seen of the GM line, if passenger space, cargo space and towing capacity were the true needs of the buyer, then the Chevy Express 1500 van would be the ultimate buy at under $30K and offeres staggering passenger space and an even higher towing capacity than the Tahoe. But who wants a van right? When you can have a giant SUV? I still maintain that the Tahoe is out of it's price range. It's a dinasour that I think GM would be better off just doing away with, or making it a smaller version and dropping the Equinox or Traverse.

8-14k off? no way.
Let me clear up a quick point here. I'm not saying that GM is crap across the board. They can make a good car. Do in fact. I'm not so much argueing the comparison of a ML350 to the Tahoe. It could just as easily be XX SUV against the Tahoe. I'm more pointing at a $50K + Chevy Tahoe! I know people want what they want, and Chevy is there to serve them, but in my opinion, it's stupid! I almost can't think of any good reason to own a Tahoe when you look across the board and look at what is available in that price range. Given the circumstances today, the fuel cost issues, the jobless, and economy, they almost have to put that huge "Hybrid" print on the sides of it so you can look all the other drivers in the eyes while your tooling down the road! lol!!

Sure they do. My dad got $12,000 off his Sierra last summer (no owner loyalty, no rebate from a GM credit card, etc.). It had a $53,000 sticker. And, he didn't spend hours haggling back and forth. It's a black on tan turbo diesel z71, so it wasn't an off color, and it hadn't been sitting there for months and months. He told them that's what he'd pay (after he and I researched it online), and they took it because that's the going rate for GM trucks and SUVs because they aren't $50k vehicles. I've seen on some forums that people come across Yukons and high trim Tahoes that have been sitting on the lots for months, and they get even better deals (that's where the $14k came from). It's not like a Japanese car where roughly 10% off is a good deal.

Here's a quick example of a base model Tahoe with $8k off. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2009-NEW-Ch...d=p4506.c0.m245

LTZ for $55k sticker for $46k: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2009-NEW-Ch...d=p4506.c0.m245

Those are buy it now prices. A good negotiator could get even more off.

And I'm sure a Tahoe owner would wonder the same thing! I, for one, would be far more inclined to get a Tahoe...scratch that I'm a Ford guy, the Expedition since the nearest MB dealer is a 140 mile trip away. $30k for that Tahoe is a good buy (bluetooth, stability control, 3 rows of seats, V8 engine, towing package, etc.); if I had a family or a need for a SUV, I'd seriously consider it since the Highlander, Pilot, and most other crossovers just don't do it for me.

I was so dissappointed with the Tahoe I didn't discuss pricing, so I'll go there this weekend and talk hardball to see what the real price ends up at. But if they ARE discounting that much, then that just goes to show you that the GM mentality hasn't changed much at all. After what they have done to the tax payer, why not just offer their cars and trucks for an honest price?

Just search ebay and the forums to see what number you should be at, and 30 seconds on ebay told me that $10k off a LTZ is where you need to start, and I'd suspect the forums would tell you that you can go even further. They ARE discounting them that much; I'm not sure why this is so surprising. It's the way it is, and it's been like this for years and years.

I wish I knew how the Detroit marketing morons came up with their pricing strategies because they are laughable. Imagine if that Tahoe LS had a sticker of $33k, a fair deal for the dealer and customer was $29k, and if you really wanted to haggle, pay $27k (which I have seen local specials on new Tahoe LSs)....they would sell far more than they do now. They do $4k-$6k off new Impalas and Malibus too. Makes them even more appealing cars!

But the dealer service per hour is cheaper. The Chevrolet is just not a luxury car...its like a Toyota...and Toyota dealers are just as crummy.



Then you are in the distinct minority who would cross shop the vehicles, and I would say it was silly to do so. Lets just say if you could use an ML350 for your purposes, you had no business in a Tahoe anyways because the benefits of the Tahoe...mainly towing and hauling...are of no use to you.



I've done better...I've driven several Tahoes. Its no Mercedes Benz...but its not supposed to be. I found them very similar to the Toyota Sequoia...which is no surprise because those two are actually designed to be competitive (i.e. Chevrolet never even looked at a Mercedes when designing the Tahoe...would be no point) and are very similar in cost. The Toyota Sequoia is the same cost as the Tahoe...and isn't nearly as nice as an ML350...why aren't you making the same tirade about the Sequoia?



Actually if I had a family of 5...I wouldn't even look at a Tahoe, because I would never use it for towing a boat or camper. Only reason I'd buy one is for that. However, if I had a boat or a camper...I wouldn't even look at an ML350.

You're assuming a buyer would cross shop the two, and any buyer who would doesn't really need the Tahoe anyways.



But why is the Tahoe the best selling fullsize SUV on the market, if its so overpriced? People buy them...a lot of them and the Suburban too. They sell a lot more Tahoes than they do ML350s.