We're stopped in traffic when a clunker of a Corolla slots up on our right and comes to a stop. Odd behavior, really, as that lane has a green arrow, while our 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon is waiting at a red.
A horn blares and we look ahead. Still red. Shrug. Beeeep. Still red. Shrug. Beeeeeeeep. Our right window is still full of off-white Corolla, and we take note of the passenger, a kid of maybe 17. The driver is his girlfriend or his big sister, and either way he's reaching over and holding down the horn with his left hand and she doesn't stop him. Suddenly he's giving us the thumbs-down and orders his chauffeur down the ramp and onto the highway.
We signal right, kick the 304-horsepower 3.6-liter V6 into gear and rocket the CTS Sport Wagon after them. Not looking for trouble, mind you. It's just that this station wagon, Cadillac's first for North America, has lit a fire under this kid and we want to know why.
Are We There Yet?
The ramp is bone straight and we're pulling hard. When prodded, the DOHC, direct-injection, 3.6-liter V6 in this 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon revs slowly, even if it does make 304 hp at 6,400 rpm and 272 pound-feet of torque at 5,200 rpm.
We've tested this engine before in the Buick Enclave and Chevy Camaro V6 and the sound it makes has been all intake drone, valvetrain thrash and clatter from the high-pressure injectors. In the CTS, however, there's but a subtle whir, and as the engine reaches its redline of 6,700 rpm, it's obvious that this Cadillac has undergone more NVH love than anything else from the GM lineup that cradles this motor.
This high-tech V6 is optional for the CTS Sport Wagon. Standard fare for the CTS Sport Wagon is a 270-hp 3.0-liter V6, while a 250-hp 2.9-liter V6 turbodiesel is in development for European and Asian markets.
If we were to keep our foot planted, we'd have traveled 1,320 feet in 15.1 seconds and Mr. and Ms. Corolla would have a mirror full of CTS going 93.3 mph. At least, they would if this roadway had the same surface as our test track and if such things weren't illegal. Instead 60 mph passes in 7.0 seconds (6.7 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip), which is very reasonable quickness, but the Corolla is gone, lost in a sea of bland, sleepy sedans and lumbering SUVs on the freeway.
Are We There Yet?
With your right foot in the carpet, the 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon always responds the same way whether the transmission is in Normal, Sport or Manual mode. There's no tire scratch, just a strong whir with a slight pitch increase as the gears change. (Think of the sound of someone vacuuming in the apartment next to you.) At cruising speed, the fan for the air-cooled driver seat is louder than the engine note.
The six-speed Hydra-matic automatic is good. Shifts are imperceptible in automatic mode, and in manual mode it will hold a gear for as long as you want to abuse the engine. The buttons on the steering wheel that trigger the shifts are very similar to the ones on the automatic-equipped Chevy Camaro, and are far less offensive in a luxury wagon than they are in a muscle machine. Sport mode is a welcome feature in the CTS's transmission, but the internal logic seems lacking. All too often the transmission goes up a gear — or down two — for no good reason. It's irritating and jerky and makes us skip this altogether and use Manual mode when the need for shenanigans arises.
This car came equipped with the FE3 suspension (the most aggressive of the three available calibrations) and hyper-grippy 245/45ZR19 Continental ContiSportContact 3 tires. While the tires prevent dramatic oversteer (either accidental or intentional), they more than make up for this shortcoming (yes, such behavior is a shortcoming in our world) on our test track. A performance of 0.81g around our skid pad is more than enough cornering grip to compress all of your kids into a single, wriggling, screaming pile against the door. And if that's not enough for you, this thing rips through the slalom at 67.1 mph. That's 67.1 miles per hour, a speed that will get you a ticket on some highways, yet this station wagon can sustain it while weaving between cones.
Are We There Yet?
The 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon has the same rear-seat headroom measurement as the CTS sedan — 37.2 inches. This means that there's not a lot of it back there and twisting your frame past the awkward C-pillars behind the back door isn't fun, either. Full-size adults will wish for more room; taller people will wish they'd brought their own car. Anyone sitting in the middle spot, even for a few minutes, will never want to hang out with you again. The rear seats look cool, but their usage is limited.
We employed a team of test children for a brief ride, and complaints were constant and focused on the fact that there aren't enough power outlets. The seats are too deep. The seats are too hard. Can't see out the windows. Kate's touching me. It's hard to get into. Billy spilled cereal. It's bumpy. There's nowhere to keep our juice. It turns out that Bluetooth, iPod, 3D navigation, weather (kids love weather) and the hard drive are all reserved for front-seat passengers. But one of the test tweens was smitten with one rear-seat goodie, the Cadillac-badged Autonet WiFi system that's a dealer-installed option. It costs $499 for the box and installation and then an additional $29/month for the service itself.
We filled the 58 cubic feet of empty space with 85 pounds of flat-coated retriever.
All of us having had enough of that, we dropped the rear seats to create a flat load floor, opened the motorized hatch and filled the 58 cubic feet of empty space with 85 pounds of flat-coated retriever, our regulation test dog. He had very few complaints. The low load floor made for an easy jump-in-and-jump-out and there was ample space for him to turn around, stretch out and take a nap.
The dog was sleeping in the back, his head resting on a pile of stinky hiking boots, and as the hatch clicked itself closed, the purpose of this Art Deco wagon started to make some sense. The 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon gets good mileage (EPA-rated 26 mpg highway is estimated; we averaged 17.7 mpg combined); holds enough gear to have a fun weekend out at the park or beach; has available AWD (winter tires are a less expensive alternative and are available for the 19-inch wheels); and the Nivomat self-leveling rear shocks keep the ride controlled even with 300 pounds of test gear. For small and even potentially childless families on the go, there are few better places to spend a few hundred miles.
Don't Make Us Turn This Wagon Around
Dear Americans: Buy this car. It's not your Tahoe or Odyssey and it's not perfect, but that's the point. It looks like an architectural design project and drives like a stiff-legged European sedan. Don't think of this as a traditional wagon. It is not the successor to the 1991-'96 B-body Buick Roadmaster/Chevy Caprice wagon (a niche filled by the 2010 Cadillac SRX).
Instead, think of the 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon as a continuation of a car put on hiatus some 55 years ago. One of Harley Earl's dream cars, it was outlandish, gorgeous and by all measures impractical to all but a very specific audience; it was the 1954 Corvette "Waldorf" Nomad. In the way it combined a gentleman's sports car with a luxury car and even to its funny C-pillar that was wider at the top than at the base, the Nomad was the natural precursor to the CTS Sport Wagon.
So we've got a shot to buy something different — something functional and fun. It's a lifestyle wagon for those who could use a Subaru, but don't want to replace their cashmere sweaters with flannel button-ups. It's a new chapter in an old book and we hope it's one they keep writing.
As for that kid in the Corolla? Good job, Cadillac. It's easy to get thumbs-ups and friendly waves with new cars, but when you make tough kids hate you for no real reason, that's when you know you've arrived.
The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
charlesb says:
06:57 PM, 01/23/2010
Seventeen-point-eight miles per gallon is "good mileage"? Sorry, I do not think so.
1487 says:
06:56 AM, 11/15/2009
"As far as price is concerned, Acura sold a $67-90K+ sportcars back when Cadillac was still producing those monsterous, veloured, bench seated, landau topped, marshmallow suspended land barges. With that said, I find it comical that you consistently find fault with other brands yet when it comes to GM products you choose to put your blinders on. Don't get it twisted."
Spare me the NSX talk. How many did Acura sell? It is true that Acura HAD one car that sold for more than CAdillacs of that time but that doesn't change the overall facts- Acuras sell for considerably less than Cadillacs and have MSRPs that are on a lower rung.
As for Cadillac, they started selling cars that didn't qualify as "land barges" when the STS came out in 1992- it was MT car of the year. While that car was FWD its interior, technology and performance was comparable to the RWD luxury cars of the day. It was no land barge. Cadillac did continue to make large RWD old school cars for another few years but starting in 1992 their focus began to change. The STS and ETC were not floaty cars at all. Cadillacs have been loaded with technology and great engines for almost 20 years now, the criticism of the brand came from the fact that they were not offering RWD like the European competition. If you compared the mid 90s FWD Cadillacs to Lexus and MB models of the time they competed in hp, interior design, features and price. The 1998 STS had technology that still can't be found in current Acuras.
1487 says:
06:50 AM, 11/15/2009
"1487, since when is Cadillac a tier 1 luxury manufacturer? "
Probably since the 1930s or 1940s. How long has acura been one? I am talking about the US market of course, in Europe they have little desire for Japanese or American luxury cars. If you use Europe as the barometer Lexus nor Cadillac are tier 1 luxury brands.
A DTS is a glorifed Lucerne, but Buick is not an entry level brand. Honda is an entry level brand. Buick historically is closer to what Acura is today than to Honda. That said, the DTS still has an elegant interior with real wood and metal trim- not to be found on Acura cars.
The SRX and Equinox have nothing in common except the 3L engine. Do some research.
The XLR was a glorified Vette but the most expensive Vette is over $100k. That isn't the same as the MDX being based on a minivan or the RL being based on a $20k Accord. The Vette is a relatively expensive car and a good place to start as a basis for a new model.
myob says:
05:51 PM, 11/10/2009
They are getting better. Just at a slower pace and with overpriced cars. If I could drive a vehicle that performed like this for $35K, it'd be interesting. Same with the SRX. Nice enough, but too expensive for me.
When you pay $40K plus, your resale value had better be good or you get killed. So far they have not done well in that area.
But kudos for coming up with a wagon. Too bad they didn't do that with a Malibu instead.
hondacura4 says:
05:38 PM, 11/08/2009
"I am so sick of anytime GM builds a halfway decent car insideline has to wirte about it like it's some break through in the automotive industry"
Blizzard, I don't mind the positive articles as long as the vehicle in question is well executed. The CTS may not be an idustry breakthrough but it's probably the best executed Cadillac in recent memory and that's pretty substantial. Very important car for Cadillac and an even more important car for GM.
blizzard123 says:
04:27 PM, 11/08/2009
I am so sick of anytime GM builds a halfway decent car insideline has to wirte about it like it's some break through in the automotive industry
hondacura4 says:
09:37 AM, 11/08/2009
"The gap between the dash and door panels is HUGE. The interior is that of a glorified Honda- which is what the vehicle is in reality. Its a decent vehicle, but there is a reason why its cheaper than a Cadillac. Every Acura is cheaper than a comparable Cadillac because Acura is not a top tier brand. You and Bluebaby can whine all you want about Cadillac reliability but Acura is not a top tier luxury brand and never will be. The most expensive cadillac is over $80k while the highest Acura is $54k."
1487, since when is Cadillac a tier 1 luxury manufacturer?
Using your logic:
- Escalade is a glorified Tahoe.
- SRX is a glorified Equinox.
- DTS is a glorifed Lucerne.
- XLR is a glorified Corvette.
Yes, in reality I know all of those on the list above share platforms yet a couple of those platforms are significantly altered for Cadillac use, but the same goes for the platforms that underpin the Acura vehicles to varying degrees depending on application. Acura simply doesnt take a Honda Pilot, strip it to the bones, add an uprated engine, upgraded materials, alter suspension tuning, slap on SH-awd and call it an MDX. In case you didn't know there are substantial differences in suspension geometry, engines, and the MDX uses exclusive chassis parts that no Honda has seen.
No matter how good the CTS is, 1 car can't carry the whole line. Not suggesting Cadillac doesn't have some good to great offerings but the lineup isn't all that consistent in terms of execution. The current STS, first generation SRX, and XLR haven't been sales sucesses either. To bring you a little closer to reality, lets not forget that Cadillac is in the midst of restructuring its portfolio as is Acura, although Cadillac started their restructuring strategies first.
As far as price is concerned, Acura sold a $67-90K+ sportcars back when Cadillac was still producing those monsterous, veloured, bench seated, landau topped, marshmallow suspended land barges. With that said, I find it comical that you consistently find fault with other brands yet when it comes to GM products you choose to put your blinders on. Don't get it twisted.
1487 says:
07:19 AM, 11/08/2009
"I like it a lot, but why on earth does it take a whole 7 seconds to get to 60mph with 300hp under the hood? Is it just too heavy? I ask this because my dad drives a '99 Solara, and THAT will get to 60 in around 7.5sec with a 190hp V6."
this car probably weighs 600lbs more than a Solara. Its RWD and much more rigid than any Solara. You cannot just look at hp without considering weight. A Tahoe has 320hp but its way slower than this CTS. Why? it weighs about 1600lbs more.
"
As to this particular wagon, for $57K, I'd take a current A6 3.0T Avant (supercharged), which looks and performs much better, plus has more room everywhere."
A6 is faster, thats where the advantages end. Considering it costs more it should be faster.
1487 says:
07:05 AM, 11/08/2009
"Obviously, the difference depends on how you equip them, but the A4 is always going to be WAY less expensive and offers similar room and better performance."
Same could be said of an A4 vs A6 comparison.
1487 says:
07:04 AM, 11/08/2009
"The A4 Prestige which is more comparable to how this Cadillac is optioned starts at $44500 and thats still not including 19" wheels and other expensive options. If you properly price the A4 and CTS to comparable levels the Cadillac runs about 2-3k more not this rediculus 14k number your talking about. "
Thank you Coyote. He is being incredibly disingenuous with those pricing comparisons. The auto writer for the WSJ said the CTS Wagon was his favorite out of 5 tested including the A4 Avant. The CTS Sportswagon is actually closer in size to the A6 Avant which is even more expensive. The A6 3.0T Avant starts at $53k.