Motor Trend Car of the Year 2007

[MadMax13]

Also remember that American auto shows and mags NEVER put down the cars. Ive been reading Road & Track since ive been able to read and even in comparisons they NEVER say a car is terrible, mediocre even...

[Rockefella]

This car of the year thing is based on the new car, not on the memories or sales figures of the old one. I think we can agree that the old CTS was not the best car in the world, but the fact that it has won this award is a sign that the new is a whole lot better and actually very good. Is that so hard to accept?

For bitchy brits, yes.

[Coventrysucks]

I think we can agree that the old CTS was not the best car in the world, but the fact that it has won this award is a sign that the new is a whole lot better and actually very good. Is that so hard to accept?

It is encouraging that they have made a big effort to improve the car, and who knows, maybe in 6 years they'll have plucked up courage enough to actually have a proper go at equalling or bettering the Germans. (Why not?)

However, the reality is that the old CTS was not even close to what Cadillac seemed to imagine, and the already small number of people who know that Cadillacs are available to buy in this country have an opinion of the company and its products influenced by the cars they have experienced, and that experience has not been particularly positive - if it were they'd be able to sell more than 500 across all of Europe.

You are left with a buying public that either doesn't know the car exists, or does know it exists and thinks it is rubbish.

The improvement is going to have to be massive to turn the CTS from a car which sells maybe 100 a year into one that sells 10,000 a year, and from looking at the information, whilst it is evident there is a big improvement, I don't really see a breakthrough.

As I said before - Cadillac is realistically in the same sort of arena as Hyundai's larger offerings over here. Their cars are not particularly bad in any way, but they are in no danger or defining the segment, and their only major defining feature is typically the relatively low pricing.

[Coventrysucks]

To better express my gripe with the results:

I suppose it depends on what you expect from "car of the year".

For me the implication is that the winner would be something particularly remarkable and outstanding; the pinnacle of automotive design and engineering in 2007, rather than the duller reality of "what everyone will buy by default next year".

I don't see the CTS as fitting that description.

And whiney Brits

For bitchy brits

So mature!

[baddabang]

To better express my gripe with the results:



I don't see the CTS as fitting that description.





So mature!

[The_Canuck]

Also remember that American auto shows and mags NEVER put down the cars. Ive been reading Road & Track since ive been able to read and even in comparisons they NEVER say a car is terrible, mediocre even...

Thats your problem, I read Car and Driver and they put down cars like theres no tormorrow, specficaly American cars.

This thread is really full of crap, refer to above post, there are to many people bringing there national bias into the mix and it's really pathetic.

[MadMax13]

Thats your problem, I read Car and Driver and they put down cars like theres no tormorrow, specficaly American cars.

This thread is really full of crap, refer to above post, there are to many people bringing there national bias into the mix and it's really pathetic.

I read that as well, not to mention several others and the American car mags tend to point out things that arent great but they NEVER tell you that the car is shit and you shouldnt buy it...

[The_Canuck]

Because then they don't get test cars, they make it obvious which ones they don't like though.

[nota]

I've read decades of car comparisons from both Australian and US magazines, and noticed one predictable constant. This being that straight-line performance is rated above all else and thus the fastest car in the field will almost invariably be adjudged the victor of the comparo. It is with extremely rare exception that magazines prioritise any of those other important automotive attributes (better handling, ride, comfort, economy, design etc) above the god of performance

[The_Canuck]

I've read decades of car comparisons from both Australian and US magazines, and noticed one predictable constant. This being that straight-line performance is rated above all else and thus the fastest car in the field will almost invariably be adjudged the victor of the comparo. It is with extremely rare exception that magazines prioritise any of those other important automotive attributes (better handling, ride, comfort, economy, design etc) above the god of performance

Hate to defend Car and Driver again (fanreader?) but they constantly get hate mail for cars like the RSX beating cars like the SRT4 even though the RSX is much slower. I think they really stand out as a shining example of how to really review cars. I remember a qoute from the letters to the editor section being along the lines of "If you want to know which car is faster or cheaper, read consumer reports, we'll tell you which car is better,"

[2ndclasscitizen]

I've read decades of car comparisons from both Australian and US magazines, and noticed one predictable constant. This being that straight-line performance is rated above all else and thus the fastest car in the field will almost invariably be adjudged the victor of the comparo. It is with extremely rare exception that magazines prioritise any of those other important automotive attributes (better handling, ride, comfort, economy, design etc) above the god of performance

MOTOR put the VE Senator above the E63 AMG and copped a big serve for that for being biased towards HSV, despite the fact that the E63 wasn't a whole lot faster despite costing a whole lot more.

Hate to defend Car and Driver again (fanreader?) but they constantly get hate mail for cars like the RSX beating cars like the SRT4 even though the RSX is much slower. I think they really stand out as a shining example of how to really review cars. I remember a qoute from the letters to the editor section being along the lines of "If you want to know which car is faster or cheaper, read consumer reports, we'll tell you which car is better,"

That's good for Car and Driver, +1 for them

[Kitdy]

I think that the main reason that Cadillacs don't sell as well as their competitors is that they are not as trendy. There used to be a time when people bought Cadillacs just for the name, but now people buy Benz and Bimmer just for the name. The cheaper priced and similarly performing Cadillac did not sell as well as it;s counterpart simply because the people wealthy enough to afford a car are more concerned with the name of the vehicle that they own rather than the bang for the buck or what's best. I've been inside the last generation of 3-series - the competitor to the CTS and it was hardly remarkable - it was downright plain and unimpressive. We must remember, the CTS is an entry-level luxury car, not a full on luxury car, and frankly, I don't think the discrepancy in interior is worth thousands of dollars more for an import car.

[Ingolstadt]

CTS - Like the looks of it, interior much nicer looking than the current drabbish BMWs and the new C-class (merc interiors were generally good looking IMO, except this). Other than that i know not much bout this car.

You didn't even get interior pics of the right car. We are discussing the 2008 Cadillac CTS not the STS.

Cadillac CTS: 2008 New Car: Exterior Photos

Click that, Click on Interior Photos. STFU.

Do read my previous post quoted above before you bark around cowboy. I'm fine with the new CTS, hence checking on the 'upper market' STS and was shocked by it. Trying to defend that rubbish STS by posting a new CTS interior wouldn't help it much. And perhaps you 'missed the part on why I compared my supposingly 'WRONG INTERIOR PIC" with 5, A6, GS, RL etc ...

[Ingolstadt]

I don't think the discrepancy in interior is worth thousands of dollars more for an import car.

Rarely do the manufacturing world sells stuffs by production costs + mark up. They produce as lean as they could, market as good as they can, and create a price point where it fits in the market demand's perceived 'value' from their marketing effort. Hence if people continues to believe BMW is worth at least 10 - 15% more than a similiar CTS, so be it, in a business standpoint, there's no reason they would want to reduce the pricing. And the more they earn, the more they can budget for their R&D, which is a good thing.

[Rockefella]

So mature!

Your biases for things like McLaren and being against American cars warranted the bitchy brits nomenclature. You guys are all so bitter over the revolutionary war. It was 230+ years ago!