Some people will object to the styling of the recently introduced second-generation Cadillac CTS. They'll say the front grille is too big or that the interior is too flashy. To my eye, though, the styling is the best out of Detroit in recent memory, and exactly what a Cadillac should be in the twenty-first century.

But how well does the new car perform? Can it compete in terms of acceleration, handling, and ride with the best from overseas? I've been dying to find out ever since the new car was revealed at last January's Detroit auto show.

Unfortunately, when I finally found a small window within my increasingly insane schedule I could not drive the car I wanted to. The dealer in my area sells the new CTS as quickly as it can get them. Only three cars were in stock, all with the base suspension and all-wheel-drive. So that's the car I'm reviewing here.

Update: I have now also driven a 2008 Cadilllac CTS with rear-wheel-drive and the FE2 mid-level suspension. Revisions below.

Styling

As I've noted, the revised styling is very nicely conceived and executed. I haven't been a fan of the huge grilles on current Audis, which started the current fad. But GM's designers have masterfully given the new ginormous grille a trapezoidal shape, bisected it with the bumper, and integrated it with the rest of the car's design. So it works, glitzy trim and all.

The rest of the new CTS' exterior is an evolution of the first-generation CTS, with fewer edges and more refined transitions. While I appreciate the additional refinement of the new design--the old car's styling is somewhat amateurish in comparison--refinement tends to have a price, and it does here. The new bodysides are softer than I'd like, and some of the distinctiveness and edginess of the original have been sacrificed.

In short, the new car is much more beautiful, but the old one had more character. That said, even the new design has more character than just about any competitor. An Infiniti M35 looks bland in comparison.

Inside, the new CTS doesn't even remotely resemble the old one. The distinctive but widely reviled CPU tower-influenced instrument panel has been tossed. In its place is an instrument panel that flows cleanly into a multifaceted center stack, which is itself outlined in bands of faux carbon fiber or wood. The tops of the doors and instrument panel are upholstered in stiched and padded leatherette. Very classy. The silver trim plate that covers the center stack and center console might be a bit much for some, too yesterday for others. But overall the interior styling works as well as the exterior styling, and is easily the best ever out of the GM.

Aesthetically, the major weakness of the interior is that color choices are limited to beige, light gray, and black. While all look good, none is as exciting or interesting as a black interior with red or brown upholstery would be.

Accommodations

The driving position isn't as low as I expected, but then I expected to feel buried in the car. Instead, it's similar to that in a BMW 5-Series, which is moderately low relative to the instrument panel. The A-pillars are on the thick side, but aren't too intrusive.

My first real disappointment is the seats. They look sporty enough, somewhat like those used in the Corvette, and are designed to minimize their impact on rear kneeroom. Perhaps as a result, they lack the supportive yet cushy character of the larger Volvoesque seats used in the first-gen CTS. The comfort of the cushion is just average, nothing special. The power lumbar adjustment is two-way, without the vertical adjustment on many luxury car seats these days. Like those in many recently resigned cars, the front headrest jut too far forward for the comfort of drivers who necks, like mine, are more vertical than the average.

Worst of all, despite their appearance the front buckets provide minimal lateral support when the road turns twisty. I ended up grasping the door pull to keep myself from sliding about the cabin. This is acceptable for the base car, but a sport seat needs to be provided in combination with the sport suspensions (two are offered), and is not. Adjustable side bolsters like those offered by BMW and Infiniti would be especially welcome.

The rear seat is similarly a mixed bag. The new CTS is larger than the old one and the front-seats are more compact than those in the old car, but rear seat room isn't appreciably larger. The exterior might be the size of a BMW 5-Series or Infiniti M35, but the rear seat barely competes with that in the 3-Series. What gives?

The seat cushion itself is very small but well-shaped, so it manages to provide some thigh support. If two not large adults sit in the rear seat, there is only about a foot between their shoulders. Three adults will be even more of a squeeze than usual in a midsize sedan. The wide C-pillar largely blocks rear seat passengers' view out. Good for privacy, I suppose.

The panoramic sunroof opens over the first row and has a glass panel over the second, but isn't as large as many such roofs. It starts well aft of the header and is fairly narrow, so not it doesn't provide much of an "open air" feeling. Others have been critical of the perforated shade. I like how it lets a little light into the car even when closed, but it sags more than it ought to and any waterspots on the glass are projected as splotches onto the shade.

The trunk is similarly compact, competitive more with a 3-Series than a 5-Series. It's neither wide nor tall, but does extend a good ways forward. There's a well under the floor for the non-existent spare. It might make a good storage compartment, except that the fix-a-flat kit is bolted right in the center of it using the same attachment point as the spare that isn't there.

This is a large car in terms of exterior dimensions, so I expected a roomier, more comfortable interior.

On the Road

Two 3.6-liter V6s are offered, one good for 263 horsepower, the other using direct injection to offer 304. I drove a car with the latter--at only $1,000 more the obvious choice--and the optional all-wheel-drive. All-wheel-drive is only offered with the manually-shiftable six-speed automatic. A six-speed manual is also available, but few dealers will be stocking a car so equipped. If you want one, you'll probably have to order it.

I've read complaints about the noise made by the direct-injected V6. I only noticed the offending tick-tick-tick when outside the car. From inside the car, I noticed nothing objectionable about the noises made by the engine. At low rpm and load engine noise is low, and up near the redline the powerplant produces a satisfying, sufficiently sophisticated roar.

The six-speed automatic holds up its end in the powertrain tango. It downshifts readily and upshifts smoothly. When the shifter is used for manual shifting, the transmission reacts at least as quickly as the average manually-shifted automatic. Put it in sport mode but don't manually shift it, and the transmission keeps the engine deep in its powerband, enhancing control and responsiveness on challenging roads.

The direct-injected engine's official output is very competitive for the entry-lux class, matching the larger sixes from BMW, Infiniti, and Lexus. And with six ratios the transmission doesn't need to compromise low-speed punch or high-speed efficiency. And yet the car I drove didn't feel as quick as those it competes with, especially not at low speeds.

The reason isn't hard to find: the new CTS is grossly overweight, starting at 3,861 pounds and ending up near 4,200 once the DI engine, all-wheel-drive, and panoramic sunroof are added to the mix. This is far too heavy for a sedan with a compact interior, and performance suffers.

It also doesn't help that the heavier all-wheel-drive CTS' final drive ratio is higher (lower numerically) than that of the rear-wheel-drive CTS with the DI engine. Usually you want a lower final drive ratio with all-wheel-drive to compensate for the extra weight. My guess: GM didn't want to deal with two different front differentials. With a higher final drive ratio the car I drove would have felt stronger at low speeds.

On my return visit I drove both engines with rear-wheel-drive. Around town, they perform much the same. No surprise, as below 4,000 rpm the power difference between the two isn't large. Both felt more energetic than the first car I drove, likely because they didn't have to contend with the additional mass and mechanical drag of all-wheel-drive.

The brakes felt weak and unintuitive, especially at first. I had to learn to apply more pressure than I normally would. The opposite is often the case with competing cars from Germany and Japan.

I had no such issue with the brakes in the cars I drove the second time around. They don't feel as strong as those in some competing cars, but they get the job done. A performance braking package is included with the FE2 suspension with AWD and the FE3 with RWD.

Cadillac offers three progressively firmer suspensions on the car, the firmest available only with rear-wheel-drive and summer tires. As noted in the intro, I had to drive a car with the base suspension. No enthusiast will want the CTS with this suspension. It's quite soft, permits the car to roll considerably in turns, and with it the new CTS has a vague, unsettled feeling on all but smooth roads. I did not feel confident driving this car.

Even with the base suspension, though, understeer is minimal and the chassis feels balanced in hard turns. The base steering is overly light, and could feel tighter on center, but isn't bereft of feel and returns some of the confidence dispelled by the suspension. The base tires, 235/55HR17 Michelin HX MXMs, do a commendable job of gripping the pavement despite the amount of weight transfer permitted by the soft suspension. And the stability control avoids stepping in when it's not needed, a problem I experienced with the first-gen CTS. With all-wheel-drive, the traction control has little role to play when driving on pavement.

So the basics are here. With the sport suspension, the CTS might serve reasonably well as a driver's car. I intend to find out, but owing to the strike that began today it might be a while.

The milder of the two sport suspensions might even be the best setup for non-enthusiasts. With the base suspension, the CTS lacks the tight, precise feel of the best sedans, and minor road imperfections make the car feel a bit nervous. Sure, even the base suspension doesn't float like American luxury car suspensions of decades past, but even ride quality would benefit from a slightly tighter state of tune.

Noise levels are low. GM has sorted out that part of the luxury sedan equation.

The FE2 suspension makes a huge difference. Ride quality is firmer, but better controlled, and thus an improvement in my book. Lean in turns is greatly reduced, and the car generally feels tighter and more precise, if still not a German car in this regard. Though the steering remains on the light side, with the FE2 suspension and rear-wheel-drive the CTS carves turns with ease and is a blast to drive. The harder I pushed it, the better it felt, the car seeming to shrink around me. Hit patchy pavement mid-turn and the CTS remains poised. The stability control is far superior to that in the first years of the previous CTS, cutting in smoothly only when necessary, and only as much as necessary. Go ahead, hang the tail out a bit, Stabilitrak won't yank the leash. The extent of the improvement compared to the base suspension can hardly be overstated.

In fact, I like the FE2 car so much that I began to wonder if my perceptions of the base car had been accurate. But then I drove another car with the base suspension, and found the same faults as before. The base suspension does little if anything better, and many things much worse. There is simply no point to it.

All was not perfect with the second set of test drives. My father was along this time, and he heard more road noise filtering through from the rear than he prefers. The main reason we drove the base car was to see if this road noise was a product of the FE2 suspension and the lower-profile tires that accompany it. Road noise was a bit lower in the base car, but not much. The tires model is the same, just in a lower profile, so this shouldn't be much of a surprise. The problem isn't so much that the interior is noisy as that most potential noise has been surpressed so well that the noise that does filter through seems louder as a result.

Cadillac CTS Price Comparisons and Pricing

Fitted with the direct-injected V6, six-speed automatic, all-wheel-drive, the "Luxury Collection," and the panoramic sunroof, the car I drove listed for $40,690. An Infiniti G35x lists for nearly $5,000 less. Feature levels are nearly identical.

Compare the CTS with a BMW 335ix, though, and the tables are turned. This time the Cadillac prices out about $5,300 lower. Adjusting for feature differences cuts the gap to about $4,400.

But is the CTS even with the DI engine more comparable to the 335ix or the 328ix? Acceleration times will likely suggest the latter, as the 335 is very quick. To be on the safe side, I compared a CTS with the base engine to a 328ix and found that, especially after adjusting for feature differences, their prices are nearly identical.

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Cadillac CTS:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/CTS.php

Last Words

I went into this test drive expecting great things. After all, the revised styling is excellent, and suggests that a great deal of thought and effort went into the new car. Partly because my expectations were very high, the new CTS disappointed me. The styling holds up to scrutiny, but interior roominess, comfort, performance, and handling do not.

Most of the shortcomings stem from an odd abundance of mass that has no apparent benefit. The Cadillac CTS has been spoken of as a 5-Series alternative at a 3-Series price. But the front seat comfort and rear seat room are nowhere near the 5-Series, especially not if the BMW is fitted with the comfort seats included in the Sport Package.

So the CTS must really compete against the 3-Series. And here it feels large and lacking in agility. Certainly with the base suspension, and probably with the sport suspension as well--there's no getting around the Cadillac's additional size and weight. After all, a 5-Series also cannot compete with the 3 in terms of agility.

Why offer a sedan with the handling of a midsize sedan but the rear seat of a compact? It makes no sense to me.

And yet the new Cadillac CTS is stunning. And it's not a bad car, just not a great one, either. So I'm giving it three stars for now. Once I'm able to drive one with a sport suspension I might give it another.

The FE2 suspension vastly improves the driving experience, but even with it the CTS isn't perfect. The weight, front seat lateral support, back seat space, and lack of trim options remain. So four stars it now is--assuming that the sport suspension is part of the package. The base suspension is very much not recommended.

A Note on Cadillac CTS Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a CTS rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Cadillac CTS reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need reliability data on all cars--not just the CTS--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
BMW 335i review
Infiniti G35 review
Lexus IS review
Mercedes C-Class review
Amount Paid (US$): 40,690
Model Year: 2008
Model and Options: DI V6, Luxury Collection, AWD, panoramic sunroof