CTS underpowered?

[Gothicaleigh]

The V6 CTS is underpowered (particularly the 3.2L engine).
The urban legend that annoys me the most about the CTS lately is the misconception that it is 'underpowered'. I wonder by what standards they consider it to be so?

A side by side comparison with the competition:
(Automatic transmission specs. appear in parenthesis)
I have grouped them into tier1 and tier2 versions based on price and engine output.

BMW 325i
184hp
175ft. lbs. of torque
128mph limit
0-60 in 7.1 (8.1)seconds
3219 (3307) lbs.
$28,100 Base MSRP

BMW 525i
184hp
175ft. lbs. of torque
0-60 in 8.2 seconds
146mph limit
3417 (3450)lbs.
$39,800 Base MSRP

Mercedes-Benz C320
215hp
221ft. lbs. of torque
0-60 in 7.0 seconds
3450 lbs.
$38,070 Base MSRP

Cadillac CTS (3.2L engine)
220hp
220ft. lbs. of torque
143mph limit
0-60 in 6.9 seconds
3509 lbs.
$31,345 Base MSRP

No one ever uses the *25i series specs when mentioning BMWs versus the 3.2L CTS, even though that is where it seems to be aimed. Comparatively, here it fares excellently and is in no way 'underpowered'. On to the Tier2 or big dogs:


BMW 330i
225hp
214ft. lbs. of torque
128mph limit
3285 (3362) lbs.
0-60 in 6.4 seconds
$35,200 Base MSRP

Mercedes-Benz E320
221hp
232ft. lbs. of torque
0-60 in 7.1 seconds
3605 lbs.
$48,795 Base MSRP

BMW 530i
225hp
214ft. lbs. of torque
150mph limit
0-60 in 6.6 (6.9)seconds
3461(3483)lbs.
$44,900 Base MSRP

Cadillac CTS (3.6L engine)
255hp
255ft. lbs. of torque
143mph limit
0-60 in 6.4 seconds (automatic only; 6 speed manual to arrive mid-year expected to do 6.2 by rough estimations)
3,568 lbs.
$36,580 Base MSRP

The 2004 3.6L Automatic Transmission CTS' 1/4 mile time of 14.9(by Motor Trend) matches or beats these cars:
1990 Mazda RX-7 Turbo 14.90 s 93.0 mph
1967 Maserati Ghibli 14.90 s 95.2 mph
2000 Saab 9-3 Viggen 3-Door 14.90 s 94.0 mph
2003 Infiniti G35 Sedan 14.90 s 96.0 mph
1995 Eagle Talon TSI AWD 14.90 s 91.3 mph
2002 Acura RSX Type-R (Jap) 14.92 s 96.5 mph
2001 BMW 540 i 15.00 s 92.6 mph
2001 Audi TT Roadster Quattro 225 HP 15.00 s 90.8 mph
2001 Audi A6 4.2 Quattro 15.00 s 92.0 mph
1998 Ford Mustang GT 15.00 s 93.7 mph
1998 Volvo C70 Coupe 15.00 s 96.1 mph
1995 Volvo 850 T-5R 15.00 s 94.9 mph
2003 Nissan Altima 3.5SE 15.08 s 93.4 mph
2003 Lexus LS430 15.09 s 94.7 mph
1997 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP Sedan 15.10 s 95.0 mph
1994 Alfa Romeo 164 Quadrifoglio 15.10 s 94.8 mph
2002 Audi A4 3.0 Quattro 15.18 s 89.5 mph
2001 BMW 330 i 15.20 s 93.6 mph
2001 Jaguar S-Type 4.0 15.20 s 94.4 mph
2000 Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS Sedan (Maitreg's) 15.20 s 89.7 mph
1999 Cadillac Seville STS 15.20 s 93.4 mph
2002 Mercedes-Benz CLK 430 Convertible 15.20 s 93.0 mph
2002 Acura RSX Type-S 15.20 s 93.6 mph
1999 Volvo V70 R AWD 15.20 s 86.8 mph
2001 Acura Integra Type R 15.24 s 93.7 mph
2000 Audi TT Coupe 180HP 15.30 s 91.1 mph
2002 Volkswagen GTI 1.8T 15.30 s 92.8 mph
2001 Toyota MR2 Spyder 15.30 s 91.8 mph
1998 Ford Contour SVT 15.30 s 91.8 mph
1989 Toyota Supra Turbo 15.30 s 91.3 mph
1997 Honda Prelude SH 15.30 s 94.0 mph
1989 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 15.30 s 92.1 mph
1992 Subaru SVX AWD 15.32 s 90.8 mph
1993 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 Coupe 15.37 s 91.0 mph
2002 Lexus IS300 15.40 s 90.8 mph
1997 Volvo 850 T5 15.40 s 91.9 mph
2002 BMW 330 i 15.40 s 91.4 mph
1991 Chevrolet Lumina Z34 15.40 s 91.4 mph
1999 Volvo S80 T6 15.40 s 90.3 mph
1998 Mercedes-Benz E 320 AWD 15.40 s 86.0 mph
1996 Honda Prelude VTEC 15.43 s 91.2 mph
2001 Toyota Celica GT-S 15.48 s 91.6 mph
2003 Volkswagen GTI VR6 15.48 s 91.2 mph
2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V 15.49 s 90.4 mph
2001 Lexus IS300 15.50 s 89.3 mph
1999 Bentley Arnage 15.50 s 90.1 mph
1995 Volkswagen GTI VR6 15.50 s 90.3 mph
2003 Mazda 6 s 15.50 s 92.1 mph
2003 Hyundai Tiburon GT 15.50 s 89.8 mph
2003 Mercury Marauder 15.50 s 93.0 mph
2002 Jaguar X-Type 3.0 15.50 s 92.1 mph
2003 Mazda Protégé MazdaSpeed 15.56 s 90.6 mph
2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R 15.60 s 88.8 mph
2001 BMW 325 i 15.60 s 90.3 mph
1994 Chevrolet Impala SS 15.60 s 89.0 mph
2000 Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS Sedan 15.60 s 87.3 mph
2001 BMW 330 Ci Convertible 15.60 s 91.6 mph
1999 BMW 328 i 15.60 s 89.7 mph
1991 Dodge Stealth ES 15.60 s 92.6 mph
1989 Toyota MR2 Supercharged 15.60 s 88.0 mph
2003 Honda Accord EX V-6 Sedan 15.61 s 92.4 mph
1994 Subaru SVX LS 15.61 s 92.3 mph
2002 Audi A4 3.0 CVT 15.63 s 90.9 mph
1989 BMW 535 i 15.70 s 89.6 mph
2002 Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS 15.70 s 86.7 mph
1997 Ford Probe GT 15.70 s 89.4 mph
2001 Acura 3.2CL 15.70 s 89.9 mph
2002 Acura RSX 15.70 s 90.5 mph
1998 Mercedes-Benz E 320 15.70 s 88.5 mph
2003 Mazda 6 s 15.72 s 89.5 mph
2003 Nissan Murano SL AWD 15.74 s 88.1 mph
2002 MINI Cooper S 15.77 s 89.5 mph
1997 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 15.80 s 86.8 mph
1997 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro 15.80 s 89.4 mph
2001 Mazda Miata 15.80 s 87.7 mph
2002 Pontiac Vibe GT 15.80 s 89.6 mph
2000 Honda Civic SI 15.84 s 88.5 mph
2003 Dodge Stratus R/T 2.7 Sedan 15.87 s 90.7 mph
2002 Ford Focus SVT 15.90 s 90.2 mph
2002 Volkswagen Jetta GLS 1.8T 15.90 s 89.4 mph
2003 Volkswagen Passat GL 1.8T 15.92 s 88.4 mph
2002 Dodge Neon ACR 15.96 s 88.1 mph
1988 Mazda 323 GT 15.98 s 88.1 mph
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee V8 Limited 2WD 15.99 s 85.8 mph
1999 Chrysler 300M 15.99 s 89.7 mph
1999 Saab 9-3 SE 5-door 16.00 s 86.8 mph
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT 16.03 s 88.0 mph
1988 Merkur XR4TI 16.06 s 85.7 mph
2003 Honda Accord EX 2.4 Sedan 16.09 s 88.4 mph
1992 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 16.10 s 85.0 mph
1997 Volkswagen Jetta GLX VR6 16.10 s 88.5 mph
1999 Rolls-Royce Silver Seraph 16.10 s 88.6 mph
2001 Dodge Neon R/T 16.10 s 87.0 mph
1997 Hyundai Tiburon FX 16.10 s 87.2 mph
1990 Ford Probe GT 16.10 s 85.9 mph
2003 Honda Civic SI 16.10 s 86.8 mph
1986 Mazda RX-7 GXL 16.10 s 86.7 mph
1999 Mercury Cougar V6 16.10 s 88.0 mph
2001 Lincoln LS V6 16.20 s 87.4 mph
1991 Nissan 240SX SE 16.20 s 86.0 mph
1991 Toyota MR2 16.20 s 85.5 mph
1996 Chevrolet Camaro 3.8 V6 16.20 s 84.9 mph
1997 Ford Escort ZX2 Sport 16.30 s 84.8 mph
1998 Isuzu Amigo V-6 16.30 s 84.8 mph
1989 Mazda 323 GTX 16.30 s 83.6 mph
1997 Audi A4 1.8T Quattro 16.30 s 84.2 mph
2003 Lincoln Aviator 16.30 s 85.6 mph
2001 Toyota Celica GT 16.30 s 87.2 mph
2002 Mazda Protégé MP3 16.30 s 84.8 mph
2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS 16.30 s 88.6 mph
1998 Honda Accord EX V6 Coupe 16.30 s 86.6 mph
1993 Toyota Camry SE V6 16.31 s 86.9 mph
1993 Honda Civic SI Hatchback 16.33 s 85.4 mph
2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee V8 Limited 4WD 16.35 s 83.4 mph
1990 Chevrolet Beretta GT 16.40 s 84.3 mph
1984 Toyota Supra 16.40 s 85.1 mph
1999 Saab 9-5 SE 16.40 s 84.9 mph
2002 Saturn Vue V6 AWD 16.40 s 79.7 mph
1982 Triumph TR-8 16.40 s 85.0 mph
2003 Honda Pilot EX 16.40 s 84.8 mph
2003 Mazda 6 i 16.47 s 86.4 mph
2003 Subaru Legacy L Special Edition 16.47 s 82.4 mph
1999 Pontiac Grand Am GT 16.50 s 84.3 mph
2000 Ford Mustang Coupe 16.50 s 84.8 mph
1994 Chevrolet Beretta Z26 16.50 s 85.6 mph
1981 Delorean DMC-12 16.50 s 84.7 mph
1997 Saturn SC2 16.50 s 84.6 mph
1990 Ford Probe LX 16.50 s 83.5 mph
2002 Honda CR-V EX 16.50 s 81.7 mph
2003 Toyota Corolla LE 16.50 s 86.0 mph
2001 Ford Focus ZX3 16.50 s 83.3 mph
2003 Hyundai Sonata GLS 16.54 s 84.8 mph
2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser 16.60 s 83.9 mph
1998 Mazda 626 EX 16.60 s 84.5 mph
1994 GMC Sonoma SLS 16.60 s 82.5 mph
1991 Ford Escort GT 16.60 s 84.9 mph
2002 Jeep Liberty Limited 4x4 16.60 s 81.1 mph
1995 BMW 318 ti 16.60 s 83.3 mph
2003 Toyota Camry XLE V6 16.61 s 84.9 mph
2001 Chrysler Sebring LTD Convertible 16.63 s 84.7 mph
2003 Saturn L 200 16.64 s 83.6 mph
2003 Toyota Camry SE 2.4 16.66 s 85.2 mph
1997 Cadillac Catera 16.70 s 80.8 mph
1999 Lexus RX300 16.70 s 83.5 mph
1986 Toyota MR2 16.70 s 83.9 mph
1998 Ford Crown Victoria Police Edition 16.70 s 81.4 mph
1996 Honda Civic EX Coupe 16.70 s 84.8 mph
1986 Ford Mustang LX V6 16.80 s 79.3 mph
2002 Mitsubishi Lancer O-Z Rally 16.80 s 81.7 mph
1995 Chevrolet Camaro V6 16.80 s 81.2 mph
1990 Honda Civic Si 16.83 s 83.3 mph
2003 Honda Element EX 2WD 16.83 s 82.6 mph
2003 Mazda Protege5 16.83 s 83.9 mph
2003 Subaru Forester 2.5X 16.90 s 79.5 mph
1998 Lincoln Town Car 16.90 s 81.8 mph
2003 Lincoln Navigator 17.00 s 83.0 mph
1993 Citroen XM 17.00 s 83.8 mph
2000 Chevrolet Impala Police Package 17.00 s 84.0 mph
1997 Ford Probe 17.00 s 82.0 mph
2002 Volkswagen Passat GLX 4Motion 17.00 s 81.5 mph
2001 Pontiac Sunfire SE Sedan 17.10 s 79.7 mph
2001 Nissan Frontier SC Crew Cab 4x4 17.10 s 78.4 mph
2002 Chevrolet Avalanche Z71 17.20 s 80.4 mph
1987 Pontiac Firebird 2.8 17.26 s 79.2 mph
1997 Mitsubishi Galant ES 17.27 s 80.7 mph
2002 Kia Rio 17.30 s 79.1 mph
1996 Suzuki Esteem GLX 17.30 s 80.4 mph
1995 Chevrolet Blazer LS 4X4 17.30 s 79.4 mph
2001 Subaru Forester L 17.40 s 78.0 mph
1999 Infiniti G20 17.40 s 80.4 mph
2002 Kia Sedona EX 17.40 s 80.1 mph
1996 Honda Civic EX Sedan 17.40 s 79.5 mph
1992 Chevrolet Lumina Euro 17.50 s 79.3 mph
1997 Volkswagen GTI 2.0 17.58 s 80.0 mph
1996 Geo Prizm 1.6 17.60 s 79.8 mph
2003 Hummer H2 17.70 s 79.2 mph
1995 Land Rover Discovery 17.70 s 72.9 mph
1989 Daihatsu Charade CLS 17.80 s 75.6 mph
1998 Toyota Camry LE 2.2 17.80 s 76.5 mph
1986 Honda Civic CRX HF 18.70 s 73.6 mph
1983 Chevrolet Cavalier CS 19.00 s 71.4 mph
2001 Hummer (AM General) H1 19.60 s 67.1 mph
1987 Yugo GV 20.30 s 68.5 mph

When compared correctly, the CTS is at the top of it's game. The difference between the 3.2L and 3.6L is mainly refinement. The 3.2L is unquestionably a brutish american style engine. It may feel underpowered to some, but that owes more to it's superior suspension rather than from a lack of 'oomph' as evidenced by the numbers posted.
The 3.6L gains a bit in the horsepower department and leagues in the refinement area. The technologies involved are very similar to Caddy's famous DOHC V8. It more than matches it's european competition(I am surprised Cadillac didn't dub it a Northstar V6).

Of course, there are Tier 3 models from these brands too (M, AMG, and V), but with 400hp to throw around, no one says we're underpowered there, so I will save those stats for another time.

Myths dispelled. Legend debunked.

 

[rapid rabbit]

Thanks for the info.

 

[Skuuter]

a good debunking that was!

Long list there 'Leigh! I think you coulda left out the four-bangers and vans, though

 

[K2K]

It's also $20k cheaper than most of those BMWs it runs so close to.

 

[Gothicaleigh]

Long list there 'Leigh! I think you coulda left out the four-bangers and vans, though

They're just there for sh!ts and giggles...
If you look at the top half of the list, there are more than enough respectable cars for the CTS to trounce.

 

[Gothicaleigh]

Has anyone seen the latest Road&Track?

The '04 CTS comes out on top over everything else in it's class. It's not even close.

 

[gedwardj]

Has anyone seen the latest Road&Track?

The '04 CTS comes out on top over everything else in it's class. It's not even close.

The CTS is a weird bird. Priced as a 3 series competitor, sized as a 5 series competitor. That being said I wouldn't say the CTS is tops in everything in its class, "It's not even close." Fact of the matter, several members of its class were omited and others were creatively jiggered.

Over on the LLSOC they're incensed that the LS-6 didn't make it in (remember, the LS-6 is the same car as the second place Jag for significantly less money, which could've tipped the scale). Also as someone who was definitely saving his pennies for a CTS before finding a STEAL of a deal on an LS-8 I have to say, for what I would've paid for the CTS they tested I could've easily have gotten either an LS 8 (280 HP V-8) or a 300C (340 hp-V8). Both of which may have tipped the scales considerably.

So, if you want to say that the CTS easily is the best V-6 powered car in the $40K-ish price range, that doesn't include the Infiniti G35 or the Lexus IS200 or the Lincoln LS-6, and completely discounts the fact that a couple of its competitors can be had with bigger engines (the LS, the 300 and the Volvo) for roughly the same money, then yes, you are correct.

Otherwise the CTS is a very nice, controversally styled, very fun to drive car, which on any given day can hold its own against its competition.

 

[Sifrino3]

Man, thats a long list of quarter mile times. How long it take you?

 

[Gothicaleigh]

Man, thats a long list of quarter mile times. How long it take you?

Years.

I spend a lot of time 'arguing' about cars on forums. After a while I decided it would be a good idea to keep a list of times(it always comes up). The list gets added to all the time.

 

[Gothicaleigh]

Over on the LLSOC they're incensed that the LS-6 didn't make it in (remember, the LS-6 is the same car as the second place Jag for significantly less money, which could've tipped the scale).

I wouldn't say that the LS and the Jag are the same car. Similar, but not the same. Also, even the 3.2L CTS came out above the LS-6 in last year's R&T comparison. The LS-6 doesn't fare extraordinarily well when compared to other luxury sport cars.

Also as someone who was definitely saving his pennies for a CTS before finding a STEAL of a deal on an LS-8 I have to say, for what I would've paid for the CTS they tested I could've easily have gotten either an LS 8 (280 HP V-8) or a 300C (340 hp-V8). Both of which may have tipped the scales considerably.

It was a V6 test. Believe me, neither of those cars want Cadillac to pull out it's V8 for a comparison. As for price, there is a lot more to luxury sport sedans than quarter mile times. I could name a dozen cars that cost less than everything in the test that would be faster at a dragstrip. If you're price shopping or simply want drag-race bang for the buck, you don't want a luxury sport sedan.

Of course, if you think the price needs to be equal, for what the BMW and Mercedes cost Cadillac could have brought along a CTS-V... See how pointless arguing price becomes?

 

[maxmk8]

Hmm lets see, don't get me wrong or anything i have nothing against the CTS.

But your list excluded a lot of cars. That would make very good competitors.
2004 Tl
270hp Msrp 32,650
0-60 under 6 sec

2005 Chrysler 300C
345hp Msrp 32,900
0-60 under 6 sec

2004 Honda Accord
240hp (more than a base CTS) msrp 23,000 (starting)

2004 Pontiac Bonneville
275hp 35k MSRP

2004 Maxima
265hp 27k MSRP

2004 G 35
280 hp 32k MSRP

2004 WRX Sti (different class though)
300hp 0-60 under 5 32k

 

[gedwardj]

I wouldn't say that the LS and the Jag are the same car. Similar, but not the same. Also, even the 3.2L CTS came out above the LS-6 in last year's R&T comparison. The LS-6 doesn't fare extraordinarily well when compared to other luxury sport cars.

Well, they're the same platform, the same engine and use many of the same interior trim pieces. They're beyond "similar." Many complaints of the Jag are, in fact, that it's SO close to the LS that it seems downmarket in comparison to other entry lux cars. Also given the amount of changes that Lincoln made for the LS V6 (many of which were carried out in the Jag) it would be interesting to see how it placed.

It was a V6 test. Believe me, neither of those cars want Cadillac to pull out it's V8 for a comparison.

Maybe when the new STS hits market. Currently the Northstar, btilliant engine as it is, isn't in a car that could keep up with any other American V-8 sport sedan chassis wise. And the current STS is one of my top 5 cars of all time, but it's OLD.

But, wait, you're probably talking about the CTS-V. Not really a "Cadillac" V-8, but sure, let's go there. My argument was that for fairness the CTS should've been compared to cars roughly in its same size/price class instead of just "4 door V-6 sporty sedans." That would necessitate the inclusion of various V-8s. But if you want to pull out the big guns from everyone then you've got:

Jas S-Type R
Audi RS6 (which, believe it or not, can still be bought new at least in Atlanta)
M-B E55

Any of these cars will more than hold their own/destroy the CTS-V. Not to mention the Chrysler and Lincoln will both squeeze the CTS-V from the bottom (and let's not forget the romored 2006 SRT 300C due out next year pushing 500 ponies).

As for price, there is a lot more to luxury sport sedans than quarter mile times. I could name a dozen cars that cost less than everything in the test that would be faster at a dragstrip. If you're price shopping or simply want drag-race bang for the buck, you don't want a luxury sport sedan.

I never mentioned quarter mile times, I mentioned that you can get a more powerful car for the same price. In a thread called "CTS underpowered?" that seemed germaine

Of course, if you think the price needs to be equal, for what the BMW and Mercedes cost Cadillac could have brought along a CTS-V... See how pointless arguing price becomes?

I thought the test was a silly test to begin with. That wide of a price spread meant that there was no where near an even playing ground and left me doubting that people would be cross shopping those cars anyway. In the real world people buy what they can afford. If I'm comfortable spending $40K on a Caddy I'm probably looking at what $40k buys me in a Chrysler, I'm not looking at $50K Mercedes.

I'm telling you the same thing I told the people on the LLSOC who got all upset that the LS wasn't invited to the dance. When it comes down to it every comparison test is about a handful of guys opinions. I'm sure if you got a different handful of guys they would've come to a different conclusion. Geetting all worked up about it (and everybody always does) is silly. Unless you're actually trying to sell the cars it doesn't matter.

 

[GrayGhost1]

Geetting all worked up about it (and everybody always does) is silly. Unless you're actually trying to sell the cars it doesn't matter.

I couldn't agree more with you on this!! :Beer

 

[george_in_portland]

Weren't the magazine reviewers the first and most vocal proponents of the 'underpowered' argument? Even if power was adequate I condone this gentle nudge to Cadi to up the ante...at the very least it raises awareness.

From the perspective of an ex-driver of an LS1 powered Camaro SS, anything less than 300 hp at the wheels is under powered

 

[2k2ls]

too much :F and argue2. lincoln, cadillac who cares? it still beats driving a civic with a 48 foot high wing and a can of maxwell house for a muffler that does 17's on the track but has "fear this" on the windshield!!! whoa! am I venting? sorry guys. :give

 

[Katshot]

I'm not a huge fan of the CTS but I believe that Cadillac offers a flavor of that car for everyone's taste, and none can be called "under-powered", especially when kept in comparison to it's relative market competition. And to believe that the CTS-V is anything short of an AMAZING performance bargain is only showing you're either uninformed or very biased AGAINST the Cadillac. Cadillac and Chevy power, PERFECT together!