BMWBig6

2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon 3.6



PRICE AS TESTED: $54,635 (base price: $44,055)

ENGINE TYPE: 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 218 cu in, 3564cc
Power (SAE net): 304 bhp @ 6400 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 273 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 113.4 in
Length: 191.3 in
Width: 72.5 in
Height: 59.1 in
Cargo Capacity: 25 cubic feet (seats up), 53 cubic feet (seats down)
Curb weight: 4212 lb (51.4/48.6%)

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 18/26 mpg
C/D observed: 16 mpg

I know GM is trying to market the CTS as a competitor to the 5-series BMW, MB E-class, and I guess the Audi A6. But I still remember when most people cross-shopped the (previous generation) CTS with the Audi A4, BMW 3-series, Lexus IS, and MB C-class. Even Car & Driver lists the "Top Competitors" for the 2010 CTS wagon as the following:

* Audi A4 Avant
* BMW 3-series sports wagon
* Infiniti EX35
* Volkswagen Passat wagon
* Volvo V50

So just for fun, here are some specs for the 2010 Audi A4 Avant 2.0T S-Line (just added to Motor Trend's long term fleet):




PRICE AS TESTED: $52,250 (base price: $35,675)

ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 121 cu in, 1984cc
Power (SAE net): 211 bhp @ 5300 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 258 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 110.6 in
Length: 185.2 in
Width: 71.9 in
Height: 56.5 in
Cargo Capacity: 17.3 cubic feet (seats up), 51 cubic feet (seats down)
Curb weight: 3932 lb (53/47%)

M/T TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.4 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.9 sec @ 90.8 mph
Roadholding, skidpad: 0.93 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 21/27 mpg
M/T observed: 21.1 mpg

Bada Bing

304-hp V6 resulting in a 0-60 of 7.0 seconds and 1/4 mile of 15.4 seconds are nothing to write home about. I question the 6.4 second 0-60 time for the A4 Avant. It seems a bit optimistic to me. I'd like to see a full test of the A4 2.0T quattro 6MT, but with the delayed introduction, no magazine bothers to test that model.

BMWBig6

Yeah, not impressive at all. The motor seems potent enough on paper, maybe it's the extra 300 lbs. or trans programming/gearing.

I don't think it's that optimistic, considering MotorWeek (who couldn't launch a 3.2 V6 A4 sedan to 60 MPH faster than 6.7 seconds) somehow managed to get their 2009 2.0T Avant (Tiptronic) to 60 MPH in 6.2 seconds.

mart242

Let me guess... automatic only?

SFV A4

All that hp and only 7.0 seconds to 60? Low mileage to boot. Major rear blind spot. 1960's fin-era styling. *Pass*

belzebutt

My thoughts exactly. Lower milage, lower acceleration despite the increased power and displacement.

But you do get a bigger car and it has a LOT more cargo capacity with the seats up (useful if you have baby seats like me).

For me the smaller size is OK and I prefer the lower mileage to the extra cargo. The Caddy is still a nice car, the styling is great.