Interactive Review:

2011 Cadillac CTS Coupe

Stock photo shown

While I work on the final review from your questions during the 2011 Buick Regal interactive review, Cadillac kindly dropped off this 2011 Cadillac CTS Coupe Premium Collection. This particular example was dropped off with over 5,000 miles on the clock and the tires have already had a severe beating at the hands of other automotive journalists. Still, this car is already too much fun. Rear visibility isn't great, but also isn't as bad as I thought it would be.

One note right off the bat to GM: In a car with already limited visibility, why would you equip it with a center mirror that isn't large enough to see out the entire width of the already too small rear window?

Fire away with your questions!

Previous Interactive Reviews:

2010 Buick Enclave CXL

2010 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ

2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid

2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS

2010 Cadillac SRX Turbo

Click on the sticker to enlarge:

Equiptment rundown?

What is the engine appearance package?

What is the premium care?

Photos?

Can you see out the back of it?

Can you see out the back of it?

yes

How's the side visibility? The sills seem quite high.. Ease of ingress/egress, front and back? Seat adjustability? Cupholder usefulness?

Space behind the driver's seat as it's adjusted to your driving position?

Transmission readily responsive or slushy? (in both normal and manual/paddleshift mode)

Bluetooth? Nav?

Powerslideability? :P

can you see out the back WELL?

does the car handle or is it a cruiser

dumb question - back seat comfort?

Important questions for a 2dr---are the doors too long for the get in/out in a parking garage spot test? Are they heavy? Do they have positive detents so the door wont close on you when parked uphill?

Do they have positive detents so the door wont close on you when parked uphill?

I can't answer this about the CTS Coupe... but IIRC, the FMVSS requires those detents or stops to prop door open to a certain degree of force.

In any case, I've never seen a GM car without some sort of system to do that... how effective they are, I can't say. The ones on the GF's Corolla are useless... but it seems to me even GM ones are finicky, as pushing the door too hard causes the hinge assembly to flex and bounce right back. I really hate that.

How's the side visibility? The sills seem quite high.. Ease of ingress/egress, front and back? Seat adjustability? Cupholder usefulness?

Side visibility is fine. Ingress/egress is easier than a Camaro from the driver seat.

can you see out the back WELL?

It's not a 2004 CR-V in rear visibility, no. There is a blind spot on either side of the car that can't be covered with the mirrors. But straight out the back, you can see what you need to see.

does the car handle or is it a cruiser

dumb question - back seat comfort?

I haven't sat in the back seat yet, and tomorrow I'm taking it on the same road course I took the Regal on last week, so I haven't gotten a chance to really try the handling.... but all indications are that it's not a cruiser.

I can say this right now though. He loves the look and the interior, but Albert doesn't like the ride. He's not a sports car kinda guy. Of all the cars we've had as testers, he still likes the Lacrosse best because he is almost always the passenger and wants quiet, smooth, and comfortable. If you include CUVs, he'd want an Enclave if it were smaller (note to Buick, there is a market for a baby Enclave out there)

Important questions for a 2dr---are the doors too long for the get in/out in a parking garage spot test? Are they heavy? Do they have positive detents so the door wont close on you when parked uphill?

The doors are not heavy, I haven't done a hill test, but I will.

I also haven't moved the Toronado in two weeks (feeling guilty) so maybe I'll take her for a spin and then try the garage test.

Even my B-59 has door detents (2 I believe), but I'd not be surprised if manufacturer(s) cheaped out on this incredibly simple feature (certianly would not expect it of Cadillac tho).

Only thing I've owned without them is my '40 Ford- I wouldn't even think to think about them.

The CTS has detents...Medium and "all the way"

It's not a 2004 CR-V in rear visibility, no. There is a blind spot on either side of the car that can't be covered with the mirrors. But straight out the back, you can see what you need to see.

I haven't sat in the back seat yet, and tomorrow I'm taking it on the same road course I took the Regal on last week, so I haven't gotten a chance to really try the handling.... but all indications are that it's not a cruiser.

I can say this right now though. He loves the look and the interior, but Albert doesn't like the ride. He's not a sports car kinda guy. Of all the cars we've had as testers, he still likes the Lacrosse best because he is almost always the passenger and wants quiet, smooth, and comfortable. If you include CUVs, he'd want an Enclave if it were smaller (note to Buick, there is a market for a baby Enclave out there)

The doors are not heavy, I haven't done a hill test, but I will.

I also haven't moved the Toronado in two weeks (feeling guilty) so maybe I'll take her for a spin and then try the garage test.

WHen i test drove the LaCrosse, it seemed to me to be just about perfect ride and handling compromise for someone who is not interested in a 'sports sedan' and wanted a quiet car, but had good enough steering so there was no mush and no float in the ride. The LaCrosse is tuned, IMO to what a large chunk of the market would consider 'perfect'. I am convinced if you could put people's buts in the LaCrosse they all would be greatly impressed with the civility of the car and the mature liveliness of the chassis, so perhaps Albert is on to something.

How does the CTS interior stack up to the Regal's?

it being two years newer in design and from europe.

(wouldn't really compare the two but considering you just got out of the one just though i'd ask)

Edited November 21, 201014 yr by CanadianBacon94

How does the engine sound? In the CTS Sedan, it's a muted but unimpressive groan -- gritty, coarse and almost a prolonged agony given the rather slow revving nature of this engine (for a 60 deg V6). It's a good thing it's very well muted, because in the Camaro the engine probably competes well for the least refined V6 in existence -- it's worse than GM's departed 3.5 pushrod V6, Ford's Duratec 3.5 or Chrysler's 3.8 and definitely a class below the Honda/Acura 3.5 or the Toyota/Lexus 3.5. I know the DI V6 engine delivers good performance numbers, but refinement is somewhat lacking.

that doesn't make sense, many reviews I have read on the Camaro have not mentioned refinement issues, in fact, it often says the Camaro is too quiet.

that doesn't make sense, many reviews I have read on the Camaro have not mentioned refinement issues, in fact, it often says the Camaro is too quiet.

It's not loud, it's just that its a crude groan even if its a muted one. It just sounds like a buzz saw and a garden blower heard from behind double pane windows.

I try to rent different vehicles when traveling just to check them out; took out the V6 Camaro with the 3.6 DI V6 (LLT) in Phoenix, AZ, while attending Intel's FST event.

I've driven both and a Sienna recently. No the CTS isn't as smooth as the Toyota V6, but it's also not gutless off the line either. It's much smoother than the Camaro.