MT picks Cadillac CTS 5th of 8 luxury sedans

[Bruce Nunnally]

Executive Privileges: Luxury Sport Sedan Comparison

For Those with the Means, Eight Lovely Sport Sedans...

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans...l#ixzz0a6TROrQV

Ranking:

1. BMW 535i $52K as tested $58K

2. Audi A6 3.0T Quattro $51K as tested $56K

3. Mercedes E350 $49K as tested $60K

4. Jaguar XF 4.2 $52K as tested $52K

5. Cadillac CTS 3.6L w/Performance Package $44K as tested $52K

6. Lexus GS 350 $46K as tested $51K

7. Acura RL $47K as tested $55K

8. Infiniti M35 S $47K as tested $54K

The group was actually dangerously close to the base price of a 2009 CTS-V, at $62K. The intro of the article was that it takes $50K or so to play in this group.

Obviously including the CTS-V instead of the 6 cylinder CTS would have caused MT to have a non-BMW winner though. If I had to choose though between paying $58K for a 535i or $62K (actually less with current discounts) for a CTS-V I know which one I would get.

5TH PLACE: CADILLAC CTS 3.6 DI

The 3 Series/5 Series 'Tweener Feels Tight on Space, Overweight

For 2010, our 2008 Car of the Year winner gets the option of stickier 19-inch summer tires, with which Cadillac wisely armed our test car for this sport-sedan battle. Combined with the second-largest brakes in the test, they helped deliver the shortest stops from 60 mph (108 feet). While objective cornering performance ranked midpack, out on the road these Continentals bit into smooth corners with "almost no understeer at all," noted St. Antoine. He was also "impressed with the steering feel-sharp, quick, precise." But throw a few bumps into those curves and the tightly wound FE3 suspension has trouble pressing the tires to the tarmac, resulting in StabiliTrak intervention. That sort of high-adrenaline running, which the CTS' communicative chassis encourages, revealed another shortcoming: "Seats need more lateral support," declares Loh, noting that hard door and console surfaces pummeled his shins and thighs during a particularly rousing romp. Many agreed, ranking driver comfort lowest for the Cadillac.

The big direct-injected six drew praise as the only engine not to demand pricey premium fuel, but got nicked for a slightly coarse bark and performance that seemed strained, shouldering a 4093-pound load (including about 200 pounds' worth of Premium-package wood, hand-stitched leather, and insufficiently shaded panoramic sunroof). That extra mass also contributed to the CTS' sixth-place observed fuel economy, despite its second-best EPA figures. The transmission was universally praised for possessing the most intuitive sport-mode programming of the group. St. Antoine deemed it "way better than A6's -- it holds gears and is smart enough to downshift quick and early when you're braking hard into a bend."

Despite midpack objective performance figures, our judges were generally impressed with the CTS' sporting credentials, but its sedan stats came up short. Dimensionally the rear seat is larger than those of the Acura and Lexus, but its low, short cushion and upright backrest were deemed least comfortable of the group. "A fine choice for an enthusiast driver and co-pilot, but people who frequently ferry more will be disappointed in the Caddy's cabin," says St. Antoine. We concurred, ranking four sport sedans superior in performance, comfort, or both. - Frank Markus

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans...l#ixzz0a6SRec01

CTS test results:

0-60 mph 6.5 sec Quarter mile 14.9 sec @ 95.3 mph

Braking, 60-0 mph 108 ft

Lateral acceleration 0.84 g (avg)

I think this is a bit disappointing for the FE3 CTS; I would like to see it do 0-60 well under 6 sec and 0.87+ g on the skidpad.