Find Reviews by Make:
57 Comments on “I Still Think the Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon is Ugly...”
Read all comments
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
When the guy says “winged V” I think of RF’s flying vagina.
I like it. Better than the Escalade by a long shot.
I love sportswagons, even if they’re a GM.
If it was my money, though, it’d be A4 Avant first, E90 BMW second.
No, I think they have something here.
With the death of SUV’s (or so we are told, but lots of folks have big families and like to tow all kinds of stuff, and a Prius does not work for them) there will be a push to the traditional wagon. Right now, you are limited to three 50 k German cars, the magnum, and a very occasional VW.
There is an opening in the market for a wagon. I bought an suv last go round, and really wanted a wagon, but they were either top shelf money or not available.
Bring Back the Olds Vista Turnpike Cruiser. I will even order the woody trim !!!
It sorta reminds me of the Malibu Maxx
I fear those tail lights are going to look butt-ugly on any other color car than the one they’ve shown.
I think you’re going to have to put this one in the “polarizing” category. I happen to love it (and no, I’m not off my meds). I already like the CTS sedan, but this is even better.
It just proves that it really doesn’t matter what anybody thinks regarding a car’s styling. Should I, a 72-year-old well-off white male living in rural New York care what a 17-year-old kid in California who has a part-time job at the mall thinks of a car’s styling? (Not that Robert is 17…) that’d be like asking him if he thinks my wife is beautiful. (Which she is, by the way, and she’s 57.)
It’s not the worst design on earth, but I don’t care for it. The front and midsections of the car are fine, but the rear pillars are awkward and those mammoth taillights are garish. It isn’t bold, just obnoxious.
My guess is that whoever has been pushing the idea of internationalizing Cadillac is hoping that this will give Cadillac an ability to compete in Europe against the German wagons. But if the goal was to lure Europeans out of their E-class and 5-series wagons, I doubt that will happen.
Americans don’t like wagons at all, so it isn’t going to sell well here, either. If anything, it’s going to hurt the brand, because it just creates more confusion about what a Cadillac is exactly supposed to be.
I really appreciate how TTAC calls a spade a spade. There are already plenty of blogs out there entirely too willing to treat the introduction of a new model as the second coming of Christ. Indeed, it would be amusing to do a spoof on how the staff posters of Autoblog (or even Jalopnik) would treat the Edsel if they had been around back in 1958.
I would say it is daring…
But have you noticed how the entire rear section resembles the fins from an early 60’s Cadillac? They have taken the fin and made it larger.
Yet again “we were too cheap to engineer a proper wagon, so we reused the doors from the sedan and made the rear cargo area almost useless”.
I’m a lifelong wagon fan … but this one is a dud.
Yeah, well, you know that’s just… like, your opinion, man.
I like it.
Pch101 said it well: “The front and midsections of the car are fine, but the rear pillars are awkward and those mammoth taillights are garish. It isn’t bold, just obnoxious.” If Cadillac’s designers (or top brass?) were painting a portrait of a beautiful woman, they’d add a big mole on her nose and make her cross-eyed. Hey, it’s distinctive!
And as John Horner noted, they forgot this was supposed to be a wagon: “the rear cargo area [is] almost useless.” Must have been inspired by a Dodge Magnum.
By the way, GM needs a better photographer. Maybe the person who shot the video was chosen because he/she would give Howell lots of on-screen time. The video is camera-phone quality, and the overuse of zoom and quick cuts are reminiscent of MTV. People want to see the car, so why don’t you let them see the car?
I’m with you Robert, the front is not terribly attractive, but the rear view is FUGLY.
I still think the CTS Sport Wagon is beautiful and stunning. Does anyone care what I or anyone else thinks about any car’s design, let alone this one? I hope not.
Maybe I’ll buy one and, if there’s free street parking there, leave it in front of Robert’s house for a day as I go riding my mountain bike along that roadway nearby that he rightfully complains about. You know — just so he’ll have to look at it. Maybe, if I’m lucky, I’ll wound his sensibilities ever so slightly. ;-)
Better yet, maybe I’ll wait to purchase the V iteration of this wagon and then, with my STATION WAGON, humiliate him on said roadway in a drag race against his beloved Boxster.
Boy, I hope teasing the editor of this blog doesn’t get me banned.
As long as we’re on the subject of poor design, may we discuss how ugly the new Acura is? Am I the only one who thinks that car’s snout is a woefully misguided, “chromified” emulation of the already woefully misguided Camry’s snout?
I wonder if GM will let it tow something.
Americans will like wagons if they get a wagon to like.
The CTS is irrelevant because it costs too much money.
Malibu, Fusion, Camry, Accord wagons might sell a decent amount, say 10% of sales, especially if they got over 30 MPG highway.
What’s the problem with the cargo area?
Another half-baked GM disaster. It’s cobbled together from the CTS sedan and like so many GM cars it’s just an amalgam of existing parts.
Styling-wise I could take it or leave it but functionality-wise I would have zero use for it as I can’t imagine it would do anything particularly well.
I believe the market place has clearly said “no” to this type of vehicle as there are so few offerings. The Malibu Maxx was a flop and so was the Dodge Magnum. Cadillac should stop wasting their time on attention and money distractions like this and figure out how to combine the DTS and STS into a world-class, RWD, sizeable automobile that gets good fuel mileage.
That’s OK, Robert, because I still think you’re wrong.
And I question PCH’s need to limit the body shapes Cadillac can offer.
rpol35- the Maxx was a flop because it was introduced in 2004 when people were buying Tahoes and Trailblazers by the trainload. The Maxx would sell considerably better now.
Using sedan rear doors is a standard practice in wagons. Most wagons are the same wheelbase as the sedans, so why not?
Andy D, using sedan doors on a wagon can work — but not always. In this case it doesn’t. GM should have spent the extra money to do it right. After all, Cadillac is supposed to be GM’s halo brand.
The cargo area will swallow objects impossible for the sedan to accommodate, plus the rear seats fold flat. This is a dramatic, bold, beautiful wagon with eminent utility for something so stylish. It’s easily the most aesthetically pleasing wagon offered in at least 35 years.
Sure, the cargo area could have even more utility if Cadillac sacrificed the holistic aesthetic theme, but then it wouldn’t be dramatic nor a Cadillac. Pure utility wagons from GM today should be Chevrolets.
This is really more of an upsized shooting brake with four doors, and if Mercedes and others can posit the “four door coupe” with a straight face, then Cadillac can build a four door sport wagon with shooting brake attributes. It’s sensational in any case.
Love the tall tail lamps. Yes, they mine Cadillac’s tailfin history, which is entirely appropriate. They are visually dramatic and will be brilliantly visible to trailing drivers from quite a distance. They are nicely integrated into the shape of the rear, and will improve nighttime visibility from the side as well.
What some wagon aficionados consider a proper wagon design does require a more custom variant from the base sedan, including wagon-specific rear doors. If one is going to build the wagon around a sedan, then this is the wagon to build. How much of the market wants a sport wagon is uncertain, but tastes and needs are changing in real-time, and this may be catalytic enough to the market to shift some people out of luxury SUVs of any make, expanding the intrinsic market. Wagons don’t inspire me to part with my money, but this one will. Give me a V Series with a stick.
Phil
Now that I get a couple better shots in that video, I really like it even more than I had posted previously. I think the tail lights will look better on another color car.
With the discontinuation of the Magnum, this gets up pretty high on my “want” list…when there’s a -V model! :)
Except for the ¾ view, it’s not bad but the few glances we got of the interior are bothersome. This is a Cadillac? Tres bad.
Between the unreasonably fat rear quarter, the lights that “integrate” with the proto luggage rack uptop (I can see that being a point of failure in 3 years) and the poor interior I can’t see the allure for the SUV buyer.
And remember, no leasing!
My Papaw used to make fun of Cadillac station wagons– asking his buddies if they’d ever ridden in one.
The joke was that a Cadillac wagon was a Hearse, and if you’d ever ridden in one, you’d be dead.
Is that something that should be mentioned here?
Designed by Vulcans.
I still think it looks great. So, there.
I think outside looks better than the CTS sedan (even though I never cared for that grill, but the wagon makes it tolerable). The interior, though, looks cheap from what the camera showed. Enough already of the brushed aluminum.
I wonder when GM is going to bring real utility Chevy wagons with upscale option as Buicks. I want Caprice wagon with the wood side treatment, green gradient windshield tint, and auto tranny lever on the steering column where God intended it.
I can’t be mad at the Caddy wagon. It looks good!
The video footage sucks, as it appears to have been shot by budding documentary film maker Rielle Hunter, aka John Edwards other woman.
DT
“Using sedan rear doors is a standard practice in wagons. Most wagons are the same wheelbase as the sedans, so why not?”
It is most definately not standard practice with any company that is serious about station wagons. The problem is that the roof line of a modern sedan slopes down to the rear window and the rear door follows that slope. A useful rear cargo area generally incorporates a roof line which is nearly straight. Take a look at the profiles of an E-class, Jetta or Passat sedan vs. wagon and you will see what I’m talking about.
Ingvar, you’re right about the rear end. The first thing that occurred to me when I saw it was that they just filled in the space between the tailfins and made a wagon out of it.
So when this thing bites the dust through lack of sales (and it will), Cadillac can use all the leftover taillight lenses and apply them to the sedans. Biggest tailfins in the business, just like in the old days.
Could someone do a Photochop so we can see what it would look like?
I’m with RF, it’s ugly. Which is too bad because I am all for wagons. The “D-pillar” is way too thick and will be fabulous for driver vision I’m sure. At most angles it looks like the car has some sort of “end cap” tacked on. Would have been better with more window. The “all the way up” tail-lights have already been done and don’t work that well here. It could be fixed to look good, but I’m sure it’s too late.
I cast my vote for FUGLY ! I agree with brndn81, those tail lights are going to look bad on any car that isn’t red.
Americans don’t like wagons at all, so it isn’t going to sell well here, either. If anything, it’s going to hurt the brand, because it just creates more confusion about what a Cadillac is exactly supposed to be.
If I may throw a little gasoline on the fire, just to get it going real good – Cadillac shouldn’t be making a sport wagon. Of course they shouldn’t be making PUs either. Nor “near luxury” cars. But what the hell is a Caddy anyway? They may as well rebadge the Aveo, offer a leather seating option, and be a full line car maker.
I agree that Americans don’t like wagons; Not in big enough numbers to make this worthwhile. It’s an old time sedan based wagon, and as we all learned in the early ’80s, these have very little utility other than being able to put small children in the “way back”.
Sorta reminds me of the unholy love child of a new Xb and a Dodge Magnum. That’s hugely ugly.
People who want wagons place utility over zoominess. They don’t mind a boxy look as long as it is well styled and well made. Think Audi A6 or Volvo V70.
Uh… the CTS is one of the best looking cars to ever roll out of Detroit.
And this is the wagon version.
It’s like…. who thinks the A4 is hot, but thinks the A4 avant is ugly?
Exactly — no one!
The CTS Wagon’s a looker.
If Cadillac thinks (or hopes) that this will sell, that makes a case for importing the Holden Sportswagon as a Pontiac G8 SW (totally imaginative naming) a better looking, less polarising design. With a 6ltr V8 that’ll frighten the horses, greenies and any would be CTS wagon owner!
http://www.holden.com.au
Is it me, or did GM just seriously eff up a Saab 9-3 SportCombi?
I’m still liking it. I like wagons, and can’t think of one I like better. This one certainly looks sportier than most. At the expense of functionality, of course.
I’ve not been a big fan of the techno/industrial style of the CTS. This wagon hasn’t asauged those feelings. Aside from the enormous blind spots at the rear, it’s as boring as was the SRX. I do disagree about the tail lights only looking good on a red unit – they won’t look good on anything. When brakes are applied, they’ll likely blind the person follwwing behind. The interior looks really cheap on the video. Cadilac missed a great opportunity on this one and I predict a DOA for it.
The interior looks to be the same as the CTS sedan which has a very good interior. What are you people talking about?
Also, the Magnum flopped because a) came out during the SUV years b) interior was too cheap for the price they were asking.
The Cadillac wagon looks fine, as far as sales go, I doubt GM expects it to sell in the hundreds of thousands, given that practically nobody in this country buys Audi or BMW wagons, the only ones that were selling were the SUV-ish Audi Allroad and Volvo XC70, and only in the Boston area.
Its okay Robert, you know what they say about opinions and belly buttons (I was going to say opinions and arseholes, but I didn’t want you to think I was calling you one of those)…
P.S, Two statements that are getting really old?
“Americans won’t buy wagons.”
“Americans won’t buy small cars.”
Rubbish. Looking at car sales right now, Americans won’t buy SUV’s. Small cars are selling and I guarantee that in the current environment a wagon with the room of an SUV/CUV but will style and the fuel economy of a car will sell, and sell big.
One botheration is that I see many comments on TTAC that bitch about how US automakers don’t make wagons, but as soon as GM comes out with what I consider to be a pretty handsome wagon, even more commenters stampede in to bitch about how ugly it is. I’m all for this car, I think they did a fine job with it – and for a while it will present a unique market proposition. I’m a real wagon supporter and I hope this car can convince some of the SUV drivers to try out a reasonably sized car for once.
This wagon might be subjectively ugly, but at least it isn’t anywhere near objectively ugly (a la Focus, Aztek, etc.). I think it’s pretty. Of course I don’t think it’ll sell and GM will add the sales numbers to the argument of “Americans Hate Wagons,” but I’m glad it’s on the market.
I see many comments on TTAC that bitch about how US automakers don’t make wagons, but as soon as GM comes out with what I consider to be a pretty handsome wagon, even more commenters stampede in to bitch about how ugly it is.
GM could have avoided my criticisms about it being ugly if they hadn’t made it so ugly.
GM already makes two attractively styled wagons, they both have Saab badges on them. Unfortunately, they both, er, feature that legendary GM build quality that has helped sales so much.
“Americans won’t buy wagons”…Rubbish.
Are there some secret wagon sales that haven’t been reported in the media?
Wagon sales have been dead in the US for many years. Maybe this Cadillac is ahead of the curve, although I doubt it. And I hope for my sake that it isn’t ahead of me, because I don’t want to keep looking at those nasty taillights.
A Cadillac minivan. Who woulda thunk it?
Total sellout of the brand. Nothing high class or up scale about it. Trashy and tacky actually.
The current SRX, if it was dropped eight inches, is an attractive Art&Science Cadillac wagon.
This is not.
I don’t particularly like the new CTS, either. The old one was a good looking car; this one bloated. The wagon form doesn’t help: it adds more visual bulk and clutters up the few nice lines the sedan has. About the only compliment I can give is “it’s better than the CTS coupe.”
GM’s more recent designs–excepting the G8 and the various Saturns–have been very nose-heavy. I don’t think it’s a proportion that will age at all well.
Pch101 wrote:
Are there some secret wagon sales that haven’t been reported in the media? Wagon sales have been dead in the US for many years.
The only reason SUVs replaced wagons is through idiotic government meddling. CAFE gave truck-based wagons (read: SUVs) preferential treatment. Once that is gone, and now that the gas prices have gone up, the sales of SUVs dropped off the cliff. Wagons are not fully replacing them because there are no decent mid- or full-size wagons on the market to speak of (at utilitarian prices – please don’t give me examples of A6 or somesuch).
Det 2.8 has a choice – insist on SUVs, or try to replace the functionality with more fuel-efficient wagons. Considering the incredible foresight that GM overlords have displayed so far, I would not count on the latter.
Wagons are not fully replacing them because there are no decent mid- or full-size wagons on the market to speak of (at utilitarian prices – please don’t give me examples of A6 or somesuch).
CAFE may have motivated Detroit to figure out how to sell more trucks, but it didn’t force anyone to change their tastes.
The Accord and Camry wagons are both dead. The Civic and Corolla — ditto. Wagons don’t sell well in the United States, no matter who makes them or what they cost. People just don’t like them.
While SUV’s replaced the old wagon market, that does not mean that new buyers will now replace their SUV’s with wagons.
Much of the SUV boom was fueled by buyers who wanted perceived safety and a feeling of dominance while avoiding the stigma associated with a family car. Wagons do not provide the height, machismo or rugged individualist image that feed those buyer sentiments.
These SUV buyers will not be flocking to wagons, because cargo space was not a priority in the first place. When the economy turns around, they’ll turn to crossovers and whatever new styles can make them feel good about themselves.
When the economy turns around, they’ll turn to crossovers and whatever new styles can make them feel good about themselves.
I disagree. Many of the “status” SUV buyers(1) can least afford the gas it takes to feed them. As long as gas is expensive (and even if it drops, it will still be expensive), SUV and their brethren sales will be dead. The current owners won’t be able to jump into the next vehicle until their loans are paid off.
“Utility” SUV buyers won’t be affected so much by the above considerations and will go with whatever fulfills their needs. Wagons are a natural fit if Detroit catches up to it.
(1) From my unscientific observation, there is an inverse relationship between the size of the SUV and owner’s income.
SUVs didn’t kill the traditional sedan based wagon, the mini van killed the traditional wagon. By raising the roof and adding a sliding door, the “wagon” became far far more useful as a people/gear hauling vehicle.
Growing up my family had traditional wagons – A Vista Cruiser, an LTD (yes of course it was yellow with fake wood grain) and Caprices. Their only advantage over a sedan was the 3rd seat in the “way back” – A seat fit only for grade school aged children. Once filled with children, a traditional wagon really has little room for gear.
In the 80s, when Chysler came out with the minivan, families quickly realized that minivans were several times more useful than sedan based wagons. Wagons have not sold well since then. My guess is they will not sell well in the future because they lack utility compared to other types of vehicles which didn’t exist in the heyday of the traditional wagon. People will go for CUVs, which are taller, boxier, and therefore have more real carrying utilty. If one really needs space, one might still opt for a mini van.
It’s ugly and iNeon is right in pointing out that it has an unfortunate resemblance to a hearse. Those massive rear C-pillars appear to begging for aftermarket landau irons and they will look great covered in vinyl. And maybe Cadillac will offer them as an option.
@Dynamic88, I agree that minivans have better utility, but their body style (height) and mass also make them less fuel-efficient (potentially). CUVs I believe are a different market. They do not have space advantage, and they handle poorly compared to wagons.
I agree that minivans have better utility, but their body style (height) and mass also make them less fuel-efficient (potentially).
I think people have a lot of different images in their head when they think “wagon” and to say that, carte blanche a minivan has more mass or lower mileage isn’t fair.
To wit:
* Tercel wagon/Civic Wagovan
* Chevy Cavalier (snort) Eurosport/Plymouth Reliant K
* Honda Accord/Toyota Camry/Cressida
* Mercedes 300D/Volvo 240
* Buick Roadmaster Estate/Chevy Caprice
* BMW M5 Touring/Audi S6 Avant
There’s a big, big range in there. Personally, I have trouble with the idea that a Reliant or Honda Civic Wagovan could have anything in common with a Roadmaster or M5, but that’s what we have to reconcile here: all of these are wagons.
A minivan is a (more or less) a replacement for the likes of the Roadmaster, not for the European sports wagons or light family haulers like the Accord. If you think about it that way, a Sienna doesn’t seem so bad: it handles, accelerates and rides better, uses less fuel and has more interior space while being physically less massive.
Minivans really are the big wagon done right (SUVs and seven-seat crossovers are the same, but done wrong); they never went away, they just sort of got squashed upwards a little. Which is okay, really.
What we have lost is the intermediate family wagon: other than Subaru or Volkswagen (both expensive) and recently Ford and Mazda, the five-passenger family wagon is pretty much gone, replaced by the heavier, less agile and much mor expensive trucklets. These are the real victims of the light truck boondoggle: it was hard to convince someone to pay thousands more for a Reliant Wagon or Wagovan over a base K-Car or Civic, but it’s much easier to upsell them on the Journey/Nitro or CRV/Element because the ride height difference makes the premium more palatable.
I don’t think we’ll get them back for that same reason: the margins are too thin and the sales pitch too hard. It wasn’t just that people wanted SUVs, it’s that manufacturers got a way to sell us more expensive vehicles that served the same need.
I dunno — to everybody bitching about the rear pillar: Imagine it with a huge Hoffmeister Kink…
I thought so.
I think that the CTS Wagon is wonderful. I like the brash styling. I’m so bored with look-alike vehicles and the Art and Science is a nice alternative to both bland and Bangled vehicles.
But I think that there’s a question of appropriate utility that the CTS wagon addresses. First, every once in a while I need to carry something that just won’t fit in a trunk. Even though our current CTS has fold-down rear seats, we just don’t have enough utility. However, there’s no way I want to sacrifice the sedan virtues to get too much utility as offered by SUVs, minivans or crossovers.
I think the CTS wagon hits this sweet spot just right. Add in the the fact that it will be available with a manual (!) and there’s a lot to like here.
Bloody awful – an insult to the sight!
THAT IS SLICK!!!
Best looking GM product in a while. Unfortunately it belongs to a tax bracket that I don’t.
Maybe I’ll see it on the used market in a few years.
Wait – how bad is the fuel mileage? I don’t buy is the mileage is worse than my ten year old CR-V. Won’t go backwards – no way.