That’s right- a Car and Driver’s 10 Best for three years running, as well as being the Kelly Blue Book Resale Value Award winner for two years running, still can’t seem to sway the opinions of the fellows over at Consumer Reports Magazine (CR). Despite the 2010 Cadillac CTS winning out against the competition in the publication’s road tests with a score of 84 (which is considered “excellent”) and despite all previous accolades for the Caddy, CR goes on to claim that it has “below-average” reliability and therefore is does not make it on to the recommended list.
CR gave the following statement in their press release:
“The CTS trails only the Infiniti M35 among all luxury sedans in the category that CR has tested, but below-average reliability prevents CR from recommending it…
…The CTS gives up virtually nothing to the premium European cars tested in terms of refinement, powertrain, ride, or handling. The ride is supple and controlled and handling is agile and sporty. The Cadillac CTS Premium RWD ($50,995, Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price as tested), is powered by a 304-hp, 3.6-liter 6-cylinder engine that delivers lively performance and gets 19 mpg overall in CR’s own fuel economy tests. The six-speed automatic transmission shifts responsively. Braking is excellent. The interior is plush, with well-fitted padded panels and nice touches of wood and chrome. It has a moderately-sized trunk.”
The GM Authority Take
Okay. Seriously, what the hell is CR’s beef with GM? This isn’t the first time I smelled bull crap reeking from their articles. But aside from the past, this statement is by far the most ridiculous. No other publication can really say anything negative about the CTS, but somehow Consumer Reports does. How can they come up with the claim that the 2010 CTS is “not reliable”? It has owned the KBB resale value award for luxury sedans for two straight years. Unreliable cars don’t hold resale value! So riddle me that, CR. Riddle me that.
I don’t understand how seven million people can read this garbage and believe it.
Check out CR’s full press release after the jump.
Comments
Hey stupid! The bottom line is this: if the shit falls apart it ain’t worth it no matter how “great” everything else is. Stupid fucks like u r the reason GM can get away with selling broken “dreams”. CR reports it and smart consumers head their warning and avoid a money pit. Dumbasses like u keep attempts like the Catera, CTS, Deville, and their Northstar headaches alive.
All that cussin’ and name-calling doesn’t answer the question of why CR still feels that the CTS is less reliable that its competitors. And while vehicles like the Catera aren’t the pinnacles of GM engineering, the author doesn’t advocate their existence. Read much?
There’s no mystery here. Just talley up the black, red, and white dots in CR and u have ur answer. I’m just sick of people excusing GM and others for their piss poor reliability. And I’m sick of GM playing the public by passing their unreliable trash as worthy. If they can up their reliability then I’ll up my respect. I’d actually buy a Cadillac if their initial, and longterm reliability was and remained “much better than average”. And if more people would have avoided their products GM would have had no choice but to step up it’s game or fold.
Instead of u searching high and low for excuses to explain the CTS’s low reliability rating, start demanding loud and clear for more reliable products from GM altogether.
Look at the latest CR USED CAR issue on stands now. Cadillac’s reliability is a freekin nightmare!! The Deville from 2001 onward has black dots everywhere. The Catera belongs in the guiness book for it’s historic mechanical failure. The CTS represents the only direction the Catera could go which is up, barely. The STS- trash as well. With stats like this who needs a hoopty? And then to too it all off u have Manoli throwing a hussy fit cause “Suprise” the new CTS followed the tradition of its stablemates. Manoli needs to aim his questions right back at GM encourage them to get their own laundry cleanness first before looking for blame somewhere else.
Cadillac has shown its rear. Rule of thumb is this: when it comes to Cadillac, u can rent them, lease them, and ride em. The one thing u don’t do is buy them!!
And one more thing (this goes for u too Manoli). Perhaps u remember CR’s glowing review of the Catera when it was tested. It received a “promising” which was a new rating pending reliability. Despite the high praise of it’s performance and driving characteristics the car’s reliabilty ( like other Cadillacs) killed it. So yes CR called it liked it was then and it’s doing the same now. The Catera was ultimately found to be a REJECT and this new CTS has merely followed suit. It’s a highly praised money pit and consumers will do well to AVOID IT!! If that gets ur feathers all ruffeled then so be it! It’s not CR’s fault, it’s GM’s and that’s where the focus of ur little hissy fit needs to b aimed!
P.S. Used SRX’s are a black dot hoarding hog too! It’s a shame cause Cadillac builds some attractive cars. The only problem is that they spend more time on the side of the road rather than on it.
I’m also sorry for the cussin and the name calling it was uncalled for and disgraceful. Please forgive me. I just can not stand giving companies a pass for substandard product reliability. Consumers deserve better.
Do yourself a favor and put away your Consumer Reports gospel.
I can agree with everyone else that consumers deserve the best (even though most of them don’t know how to properly drive “the best”). I also will not defend cars like the Catera. You’re right, it was a dud. And that’s probably a big reason why it’s not around anymore. However, when nearly every other consumer publication out there gives the Cadillac CTS a dose of acclaim besides CR, I feel compelled to flag it. CR has not been known to give the nod to practically any domestic brand, yet publications like KBB, JD Power and Consumers Digest generally fail to find the same faults, especially recently.
PS, thank you for reading.
I’m sorry but the favor IS the magazine. And it’s not a gospel, it’s a guide. Once again, it’s not CR’s fault the stock of Cadillac vehicles rate as low as they do reliability wise it’s GM’s. CR accurately represented the Catera’s reliability which u call a ‘dud’ and it accurately represents the rest of their lineup as well-“poor”. CR is not the only mag to show this. There r many other forums where owners agree on the myriads of problems this brand is known for. Resale value means nothing in terms of reliability. Many consumers will allow a cars design appeal, road manners, to take the lead over reliability when purchasing a car as a trade off for reliability. Call it brand loyalty or just plain ole stupidity but there’s no running from the fact that Cadillac has a long ways to go in their reliability. In the mean time competitors such as Lexus, Acura, and Infiniti , have proven far more reliabile. Again if u take issue with these facts, aim ur criticism towards GM and not CR. U have a much better chance of fixing the problem when u actually face it instead of avoiding it, and the problem is GM.
Oh and if u check the reliability of the CTS-V CR actually gives it a better than average rating. I saw this a few weeks ago and was pleased to find this cause I actually like the CTS-V to the point of purchase. It remains to b seen if it maintains this. I hope it does and hope other Caddys follow suit. But I digress because I have been disappointed in the past. The new Suburban started out with a much better than average rating only to quickly deteriorate. It was a shame cause I actually like the Suburban. The realistic criticism CR reports about the Cadillac’s reliability should b used as an opportunity for improvement, not an avenue to hide from and deny.
I’ve just received my Consumer Reports annual survey. They don’t pay people to reply. The survey involves looking up codes for every product and appliance in the home, also remembering as revealing the date one purchased everything. They expect respondents to pay their own postage. They are currently begging for $10.75 donations, even from subscribers, in addition to all the time they expect people to devote to this rubbishy survey.
Who tells the truth? Who has the time? One has to be either delighted with a product, or utterly disgusted…. or paid by one’s employer perhaps. GM has never, ever paid anyone as far as I know to fill out Consumer Reports forms with favorable answers. I suspect that there may be foreign manufacturers who may do so.