Cadillac CTS (2nd gen) 2007-2013

[LeonOfTheDead]

new or old SRX, this thing IMO looks way nicer than both...

well, I appreciated the old one, but I'm not sure if I would have bought one. probably as a family car it could have suite the needs as good as all the SUVs used just for those reasons, but without their stupid "off-road abilities", ground clearance, among other features. it was a sort of XC70, without calling it a "crossover".
this, on the other hand, it's just a wagon, so it could be nice or good looking, but not as "special" or different from the common car.

[f6fhellcat13]

Anything is better than an SRX. And is it a SUV or a cross over? It's hard to tell the difference.

TEchnically I believe it's a crossover, even though SUVs themselves are crosses between offroad vehicles and wagons

[RacingManiac]

well, I appreciated the old one, but I'm not sure if I would have bought one. probably as a family car it could have suite the needs as good as all the SUVs used just for those reasons, but without their stupid "off-road abilities", ground clearance, among other features. it was a sort of XC70, without calling it a "crossover".
this, on the other hand, it's just a wagon, so it could be nice or good looking, but not as "special" or different from the common car.

IMO there is no need to be "special" to be a interesting or good car. The reason why companies likes to make "crossover" is that they don't want to be in the same market place as everyone else. Crossover IMO has the worse of SUV and car(or wagon) wrapped up in one package. Its heavier than a car, has more drag, uses more expensive(and bigger) wheels and tire package, and carries scantly more(if at all) cargo, without having the ability to actually handle rough road, at least no more so than a regular car. Handles worse on the road because of the raised CG....

So I still think its nice, that someone have decided to make a wagon, and stick with it, especially from GM when all its been making recently was just SUV....one can hope that with fuel as they are people will turn back to their senses to buy a regular car/wagon that's as useful as their would've been SUV/Crossover...

[LeonOfTheDead]

IMO there is no need to be "special" to be a interesting or good car. The reason why companies likes to make "crossover" is that they don't want to be in the same market place as everyone else. Crossover IMO has the worse of SUV and car(or wagon) wrapped up in one package. Its heavier than a car, has more drag, uses more expensive(and bigger) wheels and tire package, and carries scantly more(if at all) cargo, without having the ability to actually handle rough road, at least no more so than a regular car. Handles worse on the road because of the raised CG....

So I still think its nice, that someone have decided to make a wagon, and stick with it, especially from GM when all its been making recently was just SUV....one can hope that with fuel as they are people will turn back to their senses to buy a regular car/wagon that's as useful as their would've been SUV/Crossover...

well, I'm not a fan of the "different ftw" trend neither, I just liked the old SRX, even if it's not a good looking car in the proper sense.
I still find crossovers (or simply bigger wagons) better than SUVs (thinking about European SUVs).
then, I'm sure a very few of us need those compromises created by SUVs and crossovers. so a regular "old-school" 4X4, or a wagon, or a standard sedan would probably suite very well the needs of the common man.
But I still can find a reason to be happy for the unveiling of the CTS wagon. what I'm looking for in a new car is a different (meaning, evolution) approach to the idea of car, since we are talking in mass-produced cars and not track toys or super/luxury cars.
even if I'm wondering if there is an automaker that can provide such a new vehicle right now. there are a few examples, like the Smart or the Prius some years ago (not saying if they are good or bad, just the idea of the cars) or, in a similar way, the new upcoming Fisker Karma. I'm looking forward for the first application of the MB's Diesotto engine, for example.

[Ferrer]

Duh. This was designed for us solely for the purpose of the trying to get more money out of the CTS.

More like trying to appeal europeans.

And still failing probably.

[f6fhellcat13]

IMO there is no need to be "special" to be a interesting or good car. The reason why companies likes to make "crossover" is that they don't want to be in the same market place as everyone else. Crossover IMO has the worse of SUV and car(or wagon) wrapped up in one package. Its heavier than a car, has more drag, uses more expensive(and bigger) wheels and tire package, and carries scantly more(if at all) cargo, without having the ability to actually handle rough road, at least no more so than a regular car. Handles worse on the road because of the raised CG....

...But, crossovers have higher driving positions than cars making everything allright.

[Ferrer]

Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon #3

[Ferrer]

Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon #4

[Ferrer]

Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon #5

[Ferrer]

Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon #6

[Ferrer]

Cadillac recalling 50,000 CTS models worldwide over potential handling fault Autoblog

I couldn't help but laugh.

[pimento]

Wait, the CTS is supposed to be here? I don't recall ever seeing one...

[Ferrer]

Cadillac CTS (2nd Gen) #21

[Ferrer]

Cadillac CTS (2nd Gen) #22

[Ferrer]

Cadillac CTS (2nd Gen) #23