When I spotted a Cadillac CTS coupe recently, I was unexpectedly taken aback by how pretty the car was, parked nose out, clean and detailed and seeming to look just as fair as any modern Cadillac could. This got me thinking, is the CTS coupe indeed the prettiest modern Caddy? In fact, a whole scene played out in my mind.
Apologies to Disney’s Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs:
Luxury Car Queen: Autonomous car in the Magic Mirror, come from the farthest space. Through wind and darkness I summon thee. Speak!
Wind HOWLS and thunder CRASHES. The mirror inflamed.
Luxury Car Queen: Let me see thy face.
Fire subsides.
Magic Mirror: What wouldst thou know, my Queen?
Luxury Car Queen: Magic Mirror on the wall, who is the fairest modern Cadillac of all?
Magic Mirror: Famed is thy beauty, Majesty. But hold, a lovely car I see. GM badges cannot hide its gentle grace. Alas, it is more fair than thee.
Disgusted face. She crosses her arms.
Luxury Car Queen : Alas for it! Reveal its name.
Magic Mirror: Brake calipers red as the rose. Tires black as ebony. Doors long as the summer day. Paint silver as dew.
The Queen grabs her neck in CHOKED shock.
Luxury Car Queen: CTS Coupe!
Anger and disdain shrouds her expression.
Of course, I’ve been aware of, and generally positively disposed towards, this Snow White of cars since the introduction of the CTS coupe. I just hadn’t thought too much about it, or whether it truly represents the best of the modern iteration of GM’s luxury division.
For the purposes of this article, I’ll define modern as anything post front-wheel-drive-downsizing, say 1985 or newer. We’re really talking here mainly exterior styling, though interiors are never irrelevant and it’s hard to ignore mechanical beauty and functionality.
The example I spotted is a 2011, the first of only five years. The second generation CTS sedan it sprang from ran from 2008-2013, with the high performance V model joining it in 2009. The first (2003-07) and third (2014-19) generation CTS were sedan-only. Confusingly, the 2nd gen coupe and wagon continued to be made concurrently with the 3rd gen sedan through 2014 for the coupe and wagon and 2015 for the V coupe only.
Our feature car has aftermarket 19″ wheels that look very much like the CTS-V wheels, but being a base model it doesn’t have the V’s domed hood or more busy grille. I think, looks-wise, that gives this car the best of both worlds with a mean stance but a cleaner, prettier face.
So, if we are to consider giving the CTS coupe the title of Best Looking Modern Cadillac, we’ll have to consider some other nominees for that title. I looked for the most complimentary photos of each car that I could find and because the modern Cadillac nomenclature can be confusing, I include a link anywhere I mention a car without showing a picture.
The oldest nominee I would submit is the 92-97 Seville. It’s the first generation after the Seville’s great downsizing and Cadillac seemed determined to atone for that tragic design with this very attractive, slightly larger sedan. For snobs like me, it’s practically axiomatic that two doors will be better looking than four doors, but this would be an exception. Its platform mate Eldorado is mostly the same inside and under the skin, but somehow to me lacked the gracefulness of this Seville. For a front wheel drive car, it just really works visually. In fact, I would go so far as to say it’s one of the best looking FWD sedans from any manufacturer from any time (not the best, so don’t fret, Cord L-29!). However, the front-wheel-drive proportions mean for me that there is no way it can be the very fairest modern Cadillac.
The next possibility I think is the original 2003-07 CTS. Many would reasonably consider the modern Cadillac era to start in the 2003 model year with the introduction of the Art and Science design language on the CTS. Skinny headlights, tall taillights, blocky chevron grilles, smooth hoods and chiseled fenders were the main features. Combined with the return to rear wheel drive and the favorable proportions that brought, it made for really attractive and unique cars. The fact that some people didn’t like the styling is probably an attribute. The great ones always have detractors and the more passionate the lovers, the more disdainful will be the haters.
The CTS-V is pictured here. With a 400hp 5.7L LS6 V-8, GM wasn’t kidding around in making this the muscle-Caddy. The larger wheels and lower stance complemented the CTS very well, as I have always thought the standard model looks like it rides a little too high.
Speaking of early Art and Science cars, we obviously would have to nominate the 2004-09 XLR. I’m not sure I’d call it easy on the eyes, but it will undoubtedly be considered a collectible classic by many and is anything but ordinary. I consider it a good-looking car, but somehow have never loved the Cadillac-styling-on-a-Corvette formula. On paper, it’s great combo, but I think I would rather just have a Vette.
If the CTS coupe is potentially the fairest modern Cadillac, the other recent Cadillac coupe would have to be considered, too (ICE powered that is, and no I’m not nominating the unique ELR). As a coupe fan generally, the 2015-19 ATS Coupe is certainly an attractive car in my book. There’s a lot to like about it, including that Cadillac offered a full-on performance V model, a manual transmission was available in both base and V models and all-wheel-drive was available in the base model.
However, I don’t think it could be the fairest modern Cadillac because it doesn’t make a visual statement like the CTS does. Though pretty, it’s blander and it looks like it’s trying a little too hard to be like the kids at the cool table in the cafeteria, the BMW 3 series, MB C-class and other snooty coupes that would never invite the Caddy to sit with them no matter how nice its clothes are or how fast it is around the Nürburgring.
Branching out from coupes, Cadillac has made some good looking sedans in recent years. I think the best of them is the 2016-20 CT6, officially a full-size car and as a rear-wheel-driver, the first since 1996 in a category which used to define what a Cadillac was. The Art and Science styling works well on a bigger canvas. I like the large car proportions and I appreciate that they made a V model for 2019 and ’20 featuring the absurdly short-lived Blackwing 550hp twin-turbo Cadillac V8. Less than 1500 of these V-cars were made and they will certainly be collector items.
There are several other sedans that may be worthy of honorable mentions:
-2005-11 STS. Nice enough car, but for better or worse, the STS looks so similar to the 1st gen CTS there is little visual distinction.
-2008-13 CTS sedan, the four door version of our feature car. This would be a high ranking candidate, and if one’s tastes run to four doors over two, it certainly could be the best looking recent Cadillac. It’s more conventional looking than the coupe and really doesn’t have a bad angle on it.
-2014-19 CTS. Though the sedan-only 3rd-gen CTS is sleek, I just don’t like the looks of it as well as the 2nd-gen, but I do respect that the V model came with a 640hp supercharged LT4 V8. That is just silly power, displaying the kind of unnecessary extravagance that rightfully distinguishes true luxury goods from more common, practical products. Yet, it was also a relatively good value compared to any European cars with comparable performance.
-2020-on CT4 & CT5. The CT4 and CT5 are essentially updated versions of the ATS and CTS, respectively. Somehow, I’m not a fan of the semi-fastback look on the CT5, even though that general style of roofline has been used quite successfully on many recent sedans.
-There’s also the 2013-19 XTS, if the cab-forward look is your thing. It is not generally mine, but the XTS did make an appealing a respectful hearse.
Lastly, there is the car I would consider the only other true contender for our title, the 2010-14 CTS Sport Wagon. The fact that Cadillac even built this car is a miracle given our wagon-hesitant age and the history that Cadillac never sold a wagon-style passenger car before in 100+ years. What is truly epoch-defining end-of-days level miraculous is the existence of the CTS-V Sport Wagon with its 556hp supercharged LSA V8 and available third foot pedal. That is a car that would definitely be in my garage, provided I had money and garage space that I don’t.
This article isn’t about drooling over excessively powerful unicorn muscle wagons, it’s about determining the prettiest modern Cadillac, so I’ll try to put aside my personal, peculiar tastes and be more objective. The wagon is almost perfect, but to be honest I’ve always found the extremely wide D-pillar/tiny wagon window a little bit odd looking. And from a strict styling point of view, a wagon always looks a bit rear-heavy. I love the utility and the look, but it’s really hard for a wagon to be as purely pretty and balanced-looking as a good coupe or sedan. The coupe is the pageant winner, the wagon is the girl you marry. It’s hard to have the beauty queen’s traditional long hood/short deck proportions when there’s no rear deck.
So does all that leave the CTS coupe the fairest of them all? Here’s my thinking.
The first gen CTS and the EVOQ-show-car-come-to-life XLR were important cars for Cadillac. They made an undeniable statement, setting the new styling direction and declaring that Cadillac’s future would be mostly Rear (and All) Wheel Drive, as serious luxury cars are. With the second generation, the look and styling matured into a very handsome car with a full range of body styles. The cars were made 2 inches wider for less skinny exterior proportions, better handling and more interior space.
The coupe was another statement car. It is certainly a true coupe (rather than a 2 door sedan) since everything aft of the A-pillar is quite set apart from the sedan. The side window and roofline have a very unique, almost origami look that taken to its extreme could lead to something like the polarizing upcoming Tesla Cybertruck. Maybe not to that extent, but the CTS coupe is polarizing and that’s not necessarily a bad place for a luxury car to be. Those that like it, really like it. Put me in that camp.
If there’s a visual flaw with the car, for me it would be related to its rather severe wedge profile (see CTS-V side photo above). The low nose/tall tail look works well, except perhaps when moving around to the rear of the car. Here you pay the price for the wedge: a downright cliff-like rear end.
That’s quite a dropoff back there. I do not like big butts and I can not lie, but as overly ample bootys go, it’s pretty nice. The taillights suit the car perfectly and the center exhaust outlets are cool. The overall look is clean. Just really tall.
The CTS’s interior was swoopy and modern, yet doesn’t contribute much to the coupe’s claim to ultimate prettiness, in my biased opinion. It’s not unattractive, it just leaves me a little cold. I’d take the inside of the ’92 Seville over any of the more recent Caddys, but I’m pretty old fashioned when it comes to interiors.
My feelings aside, the interior was a huge step up from the 1st gen CTS’s notoriously plasticky guts. As part of Cadillac’s efforts to reinvent itself in the Art and Science era, they gave their new interior technique a name, Cut-and-Sew, to make it clear their interior quality was commensurate with a luxury car and it was not solely robots on their payroll. Contemporary road tests generally lauded the interior’s comfort and quality.
The success of Cadillac’s Art and Science era cars have been inconsistent, as measured by sales. They’ve been mostly competitive, but rarely besting their main foreign rivals. It’s an interesting question why they haven’t been more widely purchased, given that their styling has been bold, consistent and considered handsome by many, the styling has been backed up by good engineering, their prices are a good value relative to the segment, and all the rear-drive models have had flagship V performance models that offer very aggressive capabilities and should have a halo effect reflecting Cadillac’s efforts to be taken seriously as a luxury car maker.
The CTS coupe obviously existed to compete with the benchmark European sport coupes, yet it does not ape them. It’s doing its own thing and it looks like it’s happy to do it. I think you could even say that this car, along with the best of the other Art and Science cars, have something of that mysterious quality of Presence that used to be Cadillac’s glory days stock-in-trade. Well, not that much presence, but some at least.
The magic mirror has to be considered authoritative: the CTS coupe is the fairest modern Cadillac of all.
Photographed in Houston, TX on 11/21/21
Related reading:
Future Curbside Classics: 2010-14 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon – Agree or Disagree, Is This The Most Beautiful Station Wagon Ever? by William Stopford
Future CC: 2014 Cadillac CTS-V Wagon – Born A Classic by Brendan Saur
I always thought these were too brutalist and hippy. I didn’t dislike this generation of CTS, although the interior felt like a bunch of decent quality parts assembled poorly. Even almost no rental units had so many creaks and rattles… The wagon was fantastic. The staggered fit tire sizes on even the base coupe really limits your choices, maybe why this one has wheels from something else. The ATS coupe that replaced this is absolutely sublime looking. I was never a fan of this particular coupe, though.
If anyone is shopping, good luck with the 3.6 DI…
I love how the front and rear come to a point. Definetly a throwback to the late 60’s Coupe Deville and Eldorados. And yes its my favorite looking modern Cadillac as well, its pretty brash and radical
“…[the] lower stance complimented the CTS very well.” Sorry to be “that guy” but the correct word would be “complemented.” A very enjoyable, fun article and it’s hard to disagree with your choice.
That’s ok, we need “that guy” sometimes. I fixed it, thanks.
The one thing that has always bothered me about the styling of the CTS Coupe is the tiny rear wheel opening/wheel, when compared to the huge rear end.
I did a simple correction of this, in my minds eye, as viewed from the front and rear 3/4 view. At least this change gets my eye off of the tiny wheel opening, which is what stands out to me.
Good point! I think the expansive rear fender area ties into the issue with the high deck/large rear. I would probably like the car even more without so much of a wedge profile, probably solved by lowering the rear deck. Increasing the size of the rear wheels would help the side view, though it wouldn’t solve the big butt.
That’s some good photoshop work, thanks! I kind of dig the look. Really makes it a Hot Wheels style car (they always put big rear wheels even on otherwise stock cars).
Definite improvement. I hadn’t figured out what the problem area with the styling was until you fixed it!
Nice writeup, Jon. These don’t really do it for me though, even though I applaud Cadillac for pursuing a unique design language. The beltline and decklid are too high, and there is too much space between the C-pillar and the rear wheel opening. It’s just way too back heavy, plus I don’t like it when a car looks like it should be a hatchback but isn’t. But that’s just my opinion…man. As you said, it’s great that Cadillac pushed the performance envelope and offered a full lineup with a variety of powertrains, including a wagon! Too bad most visitors to the Cadillac dealer ignored these in favor of the Escalades.
The headlights let the first gen CTS down, but the second is GM’s best effort in decades. Unlike the Germans, there’s no ugly joint between the roof and sides. Alas, the seats don’t fit me well, but if the coupe had more headroom, I would still buy one. The final two years of the CT6 made the earlier ones look frumpy.
The cars were made 2 inches wider for less skinny exterior proportions, better handling and more interior space.
The interior isn’t any bigger, they put the wider STS suspension on the CTS passenger compartment and faired the fenders.
“The fact that some people didn’t like the styling is probably an attribute. The great ones always have detractors and the more passionate the lovers, the more disdainful will be the haters.”
Statements like this make it difficult to have a rational discussion about these, because it assumes that this greater passion inherently equals superiority, hence “the more disdainful will be the haters”. I refuse to take the bait, except to disagree with your assumption about the CTS Coupe’s “greatness”.
What you’re setting up is that we either have to have massive love or hate for these, and express our feelings about them in those terms. That unfortunately reminds me too much of the overly-polarized atmosphere in so many elements of life today, especially socio-political ones.
I would be happy to engage in a more nuanced and less emotionally heated analysis of these cars, but the language you chose to couch it in is not exactly very conducive.
“The success of Cadillac’s Art and Science era cars have been inconsistent, as measured by sales.”
The market spoke, and “inconsistent” is being generous. How many CTA’s were ever sold? Objectively, I’d say it was more like a genuine failure.
Fair point. I certainly hope nobody took from my language that they are not welcome to express any opinion they want on these and that love, hate or total ambivalence are all welcomed feelings. I think CC’s encouragement of free expression is one of its best features.
That quote was about the Art and Science design language generally, and I was trying to draw out the point that to make a styling statement that some people really love is almost certain to be one that some other people hate and that this is not necessarily an unintended or bad thing, especially in the realm of luxury car marketing.
My generally positive tone towards the CTS coupe and discussion of my other nominees for prettiest modern Cadillac were meant to be a conversation starter, not a mic drop. I agree there is far too much polarization in the world at large, but hopefully the ungraciousnness of the world shouldn’t effect our discussions of polarizing cars here.
As to the CTS’s sales, you’re right the CTS coupe was certainly a sales failure. Its single generation of existence tacitly admits it. I’m not so sure about the sedan. I didn’t find any info on Cadillac’s sales goals for it, but they can’t have been too disappointed with it for the first several years. During the CTS’s strongest sales years of 2004-11, it mostly sold 50-60k a year. Far more than the Escalade. More than the Mercedes E-class and within 10k or so of the C-class. It couldn’t touch the giant in the class, the BMW 3-series, but I can’t help but wonder that they didn’t consider doing roughly half of BMW’s volume a kind of success. Unfortunately for Cadillac, the third generation CTS’s sales fell off drastically and there is no way they could put a happy face on that!
2G CTS sedan couldn’t beat 3 Series, but who could?
The Caddy managed to outsell the Lexus IS almost every year.
There’s a lot to criticise Cadillac for but I wouldn’t call the 2G CTS sedan a failure. Commercially successful, critically well-received, bold design inside and out, huge step up in interior design/quality.
The coupe? I guess we don’t know how much GM made or lost with it, and I can’t find any sales targets. I imagine the company would say it “brought welcome incremental volume”.
I think Cadillac has let itself down by not fully committing to its strategy. RWD/AWD 1G SRX was critically acclaimed, but then 2G went FWD and started targeting Lexus RX. DTS stuck around, then was replaced by XTS instead of Cadillac having a RWD flagship (which apparently got scuppered by bankruptcy). 3G CTS and ATS went toe-to-toe with Germans on price and size, which Cadillac is now reversing with CT4/CT5. Etc etc. Lots to unpack.
Still a Cadillac fan but I have to admit half their line-up isn’t my first choice in the luxury car market, which is as competitive as ever.
“brought welcome incremental volume” LOL, good marketing speak!
That’s because Cadillac jacked the price up sky high. The first gen CTS started at $29,999. The CTS-V started at $55,000 and didn’t have many options.
Cadillac raised the price dramatically. It’s one thing to be a cut-rate BMW with a wreath and crest. It’s another thing to compete head to head on price with BMW. The ATS killed Cadillac’s resurgence because it allowed the moronic Cadillac product planners to price the CTS completely out of the market.
Especially when Chrysler is selling an arguably better car for most people (who value crude V8 power above all else) for less money. Not to mention brands such as genesis and Tesla that are offering luxury cars to a new generation of buyers who have little to no affinity to Cadillac at all.
A good, thoughtful article, but I must respectfully disagree. These always seemed like the epitome of the high beltline/gun slit window trend, which wasn’t to my taste.
These never did a thing for me, though the CC Effect is operational as I saw one on the road the other day.
Modern Cadillacs kind of remind me of the guy who has a mental certain vision of himself that is not the same as the vision most others have of him. In his mind, he is tall, muscular, square-jawed and imposing – the guy everyone wants on their team. To everyone else, he is self-important and is a bit affected. While competent, he does not really excel.
I have been waiting about 15 years now for Cadillac to make a case for itself. (Lincoln too, for that matter). If I were to collect lottery winnings tomorrow, I could make a case for choosing almost any vehicle out there. But not Cadillac. It presents as an equal to the best of the German cars, but struggles to exhibit the competence of those from Korea. A Genesis would be an easy sell for me. I could even work with a Lincoln (as a really comfy Ford). But a Cadillac, not so much.
LOL, very well put!
I like your analogy of the guy who looks better in the mirror than he does to everyone else. To draw the analogy a bit further, and to be fair to that guy, in this case he really has been working on himself. He’s been spending a lot of time in the gym. He’s been taking classes to get better at his job. He’s even learned some german and japanese. But he’s still not the guy everyone wants on his team.
The Genesis luxury cars have been getting better and better, as all of Hyundais products have historically done. They are always hard to beat value/dollar.
Genesis has been much more cohesive, and I say that as a Cadillac fan. They’ve committed to rear/all-wheel drive and a clearly defined design language. Their interiors are exquisite with an impressive array of colours (blue, green interiors? sign me up!)
There’s no way I’d take any of Cadillac’s current crossovers over their Genesis rivals. And that’s where Cadillac needs to be focusing in this day and age, alas. I think Lincoln’s crossover line-up appears more compelling.
Love Cadillac’s sedans (ok, CT4 & CT5 styling is a bit fussy) and the V Blackwing models are chef’s kiss. But these very dynamic, BMW-rivalling sedans stand in contrast with a crossover line-up that’s a bit more Lexus-like. Hey, I guess that strategy is pretty Lexus-like: FWD-based crossovers and RWD-based German-baiting sedans.
I briefly test drove one CTS coupe: the cave like interior, made worse by being all black, completely turned me off. It struck me as possibly worse than the late model Camaros, which compared to my ’88 IROC-Z Camaro is another dark, top chopped cave. NO thanks!
🙁 DFO
I would have been more attracted to these had they been more sedan derived, I never like the close coupled coupe trend, these look far too stubby to be attractive to me, I remember when they came out I thought it looked like a origami Ford Pinto.
My vote would still be the Seville. FWD proportions is an exaggerated term, if the doors of the original CTS were hinged as far forward as the Seville(below the A pillars) it would appear to have FWD proportions as well. The overhang is longer of course, but that’s how you get a sharp wedge shape fashionable at the time, the CTS overhang is shorter but it’s very blunt in effect
I remember seeing a one-off 1992-97 Cadillac Seville 2-door sedan at an auto show back in the 1990s. I think was created by a GM-supplier. It was a very attractive car and much nicer-looking than the Eldorado of the same generation.
Sign me up for the Wagon. Gorgeous!
The Volt-based ELR was a rotten (and massively overpriced) car, but I always thought it wore the A&S styling the best. It wasn’t as severe as the CTS coupe, but really captured the flair of their various concept vehicles in a way that none of the other production A&S models did.
Speaking of those concepts, I always found it disappointing that, by the time LED lighting technology had advanced enough to make the conceptual razor-thin headlights suitable for production, they abandoned the whole styling theme. The fat, clunky headlights (especially first CTS) really sucked the energy out of the designs, so they never achieved their potential.
Count me in as someone who at best ignores and at worst actively dislikes Art & Science, but likes the ELR best.
CTS-V Wagon for me – the coupe has far too much wedge, with the rear fender sheetmetal overpowering the rear wheel. I like the XLR in person, although it doesn’t photo well and the ’92 Seville has aged gracefully.
CTS-V Wagon for me – the coupe has far too much wedge, with the rear fender sheetmetal overpowering the rear wheel. I like the XLR in person, although it doesn’t photo well and the ’92 Seville has aged gracefully.
You’ve said five Art & Science Cadillacs, which is how you can summon me to the commenting realm.
I made my views pretty clear on the wagon in the article you’ve linked to and I love the sedan (and remain resentful its Aussie launch was cancelled at the 11th hour).
The coupe? Pass.
I mean, credit to Cadillac for doing something interesting. But for something so crisp and angular, it kind of looks flabby to me. It looks less athletic than the sedan. Maybe I need to see a few more in person. I wouldn’t kick it out of my garage, but it’s my least favourite of the 2G CTS bodies.
I love the Art & Science design language but there are some cars with it I can’t take. The XTS, for example, or the 2G SRX.
The XLR, I adore. I have a 1:18 scale model of it and I never tire of looking at it. The ne plus ultra of this design language.
1G CTS is a bit fussy but brave. Looks better as a V. The STS is a more toned down interpretation and more traditionally Cadillac, and I adore it.
3G CTS has a fantastic front, very svelte, but it loses momentum towards the rear.
CT6 is an underrated design. It looks imposing and has fantastic proportions.
CT4 and CT5 I need to see in person. Ditto the old ELR.
Pre-A&S, yes, ’92-97 Seville is a high watermark. Agree with everything you said here.
So do you give the award to the XLR or the STS?
I enjoyed your CTS articles, btw.
Nice writeup on what could be future CCs. I have no passion(s) toward this era of Caddies one way or the other. They are certainly quite nice higher-end cars and all, and the V series were/are excellent performers to boot. There is a local guy who brings his mildly-modded black 6-speed manual CTS-V wagon to coffee & cars, and it is a very cool ride, indeed. Otherwise these just don’t do much for me.
I’ve never quite gotten Cadillac’s performance aspirations with its V series and latest Blackwing models, not to mention its extensive forays into racing. I mean, they’re great cars and seem well executed, but the fact of the matter is, when it comes to high performance, fairly or not Cadillac is probably near the bottom of mind to most people. Seems a big waste of development and marketing budget to me to chase a market that doesn’t really exist for them, but what do I know?
That said, V series and Blackwings weren’t/aren’t big sellers new, so nice examples will probably become pretty collectible down the road.
Particularly since many Vs are flogged or wrecked, at least compared to other Cadillacs.
Also, a lot of Seville/FWD STSs were scrapped when the Northstar head gaskets went. RWD STSs don’t have that problem, but they get driven a lot more miles than geezer Cadillacs.
The first gen SRX would be on my list if they’d put a better grille on it.
Speaking of grilles, I remember reading nowhere that the V mesh was a homage to the ’30-1 V-16’s.
Agreed. When I think Cadillac I think of big stylish luxury sleds that don’t matter if you’re driving or being driven in, when you’re seen exiting from one, you’re somebody. Same kind of thing with Rolls Royce
The art & science era, in particular the V series, by contrast strikes me as cars that largely appealed to middle class Chevy buyers who wanted a more mature and unassuming Camaro, or still wanted a Camaro SS or Trans Am in the time period between the F bodies demise and 5th Gen resurrection and had nowhere else to turn to.
Perhaps Cadillac makes profit over the development costs even at the relatively low volumes. Many have shared engines with other GM performance cars. Even if not, they may figure it is worth the investment for the halo effect, since they are competing with marques that also have high performance divisions.
Interesting, but not for me. 🙂
Even though these are fairly recent cars, they are already premature CC’s. Only one contemporary domestic car is relevant in Cadillac’s class (aside from Escalade) and that is Tesla.
I had a Cadillac STS. Good handling, but hard riding car.
What Cadillac do I regard as beautiful and worthy of admiration? How about a 1956 Coupe de Ville, or the 1983 Coupe De Ville I wish I had back? Or a 1971 Coupe De Ville?
Yes, they’re all tuna boats, get terrible gas mileage, & don’t handle like the modern cars. And, no ABS.
But they are all so smooth riding if one is going from Bakersfield to LA or LA to Bakersfield, you’ll never know you have climbed the Grapevine. Eight hour drives are easy in cars like those.
You are certainly right about the classics! Of course, this article was only about modern Caddys and primarily about styling. If modern cars function better in every way, why is it that they still can’t beat the classics for a place in our hearts?
I bought a used STS V6 out of state, not realizing it had the even stiffer suspension from the STS-V. After a week on our old roads in allergy season, I knew I had to replace it. Also didn’t like waiting for a downshift of the 6 spd to accelerate even a little. Lost $3k trading it at CarMax for a DTS which I later discovered they had sent from Michigan to Florida because the driver’s heat would turn cold after 15 minutes.
The CTS four door sold here quite well a mate has one we didnt get the V8 version only the 6 which shares its drivetrain with Holdens, they do stand out among other modern cars with their razor edge styling but there a nicer looking cars about for my money.
Great study of recent Cadillac design, but unfortunately I dozed off in the middle because of how very similar the model names were. I will say I like the design of the wagon and the ATS coupe, but overall while the styling change was big for Cadillac, it was still 2nd fiddle to the Europeans.
My second thought is that sales never really amounted to prediction because of Cadillac hangover. Many still had long memories of the shoddy Cadillacs of yore (as recent as Northstar), and the marquee no longer had the relevance of a generation ago. Oldsmobile syndrome if you will.