Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

New car reviews » 2010 Cadillac CTS V6 Premium Collection

• 

Better than: Cadillac Catera
But not as good as: ECTO-1
GRM Bang For The Buck Index: 62.54  

For most of the general public, the mention of a Cadillac station wagon conjures up images of an old ambulance or hearse—not exactly something designed for mass consumption. Well, Cadillac now has a traditional wagon in their general issue lineup. Meet the new-for-2010 CTS Sport Wagon.

The CTS Sport Wagon is more or less their second-generation CTS fitted with a way-back. Two engines are currently offered, a 3.0- or 3.6-liter V6. It’s even available in all-wheel drive. Our test car had the 3.6-liter V6 and rear-wheel drive.

We’ve heard rumors about a forthcoming CTS-V Sport Wagon. In our book, that would be pretty cool.

PS: GM hasn’t posted a curb weight for this car, so the 4000 pounds is a guess based on the sedan specs.

Other staff views:

David S. Wallens Editorial Director:

As must as I have enjoyed some recent GM offerings—specifically the Buick Lacrosse and Caddy SRX—this one left me a bit cold. The odd part is that I really loved the original CTS-V and look forward to driving the new model.

The seats were probably my biggest gripe. Sure, it’s a personal thing, but their backs were odd and just didn’t seem designed for the human torso. For $50k+ I’d want something that’s a bit more comfortable.

Some pluses, though: a real wagon for wagon fans; rear-drive layout; direct injection technology; and striking looks. Sorry, though, no stick shift is available with the shooting brake layout.

Scott Lear Production Editor:

I’m a huge fan of wagons, but as much as I wanted to like it, the CTS left me disappointed. The seats were unforgivably bad, stiff as a board down the center and very uncomfortable. Lots of ergonomic oddities, too; I don’t like having to move my leg out of the way just to get to the window switches on the lower element of the door. Lazy programming for the Nav/Radio as well; when I hit the Nav button and the partially visible screen tells me that I need to hit the button that raises and lowers the screen, I wonder how many lines of code they really saved by not allowing the Nav button to just raise the damn screen on its own.

Performance was OK, but I wouldn’t have guessed this thing at 300 horsepower, except maybe for the fact that the fuel economy was really, really weak. 23MPG with the cruise set on the highway in a modern V6? C’mon. Transmission felt a few generations behind the crispness and speedy shifting of its peers, too.

A good outer shape left wanting in nearly every other area. My 20-year-old Volvo 740 Turbo Wagon was superior in every way that I care about, and it was a 230,000 mile beater.

Reader comments:

1. Dr. Hess: — May 26, 2010 1:37 p.m.
   

   I think “Sport Wagon” pretty well sums it up.

2. John Brown: — May 26, 2010 1:47 p.m.
   

   I have seen them running around Lansing for over a year in various pre production guises and I absolutely love the looks. I have driven two different wagons in the past three weeks and was left thinking “this is a “nice car” but GM has a problem… No one will want to pay $50,000 for a V6 “sportwagon” when they can get an Audi Avant for less.

   GM, I would love for you to succeed but you can’t make GMT SUV profits on every model you build.

   Awesome car at 1/2 the price but a “nice car” at $50k. Nice cars do not inspire people to beat down the dealership doors.

3. SilverFleet: — May 26, 2010 3:10 p.m.
   

   It’s a sharp looking wagon, but it needs a slightly larger rear spoiler. Nothing crazy, but something that compliments the body lines than that teeny lip it has now.

   And for $50,000, there are many other cars (and wagon-type vehicles) that I’d rather spend my hard earned cash on. It might be a decent choice 5 years down the road when it depreciates to about $5,000-6,000, like most other GM vehicles do.

4. pinchvalve: — Jun 1, 2010 12:42 p.m.
   

   I love the look of the new SRX and don’t see the advantage of the wagon.

5. forzav12: — Jun 9, 2010 6:32 p.m.
   

   “Volvo 740 better”, Christ almighty, the clueless have risen in droves.

   The CTS wagon is a great drive for what it is-far better than a creaky old brick-and, yeah, I’ve driven both.

6. DaphneFlunnighan: — May 19, 2011 7:14 a.m.
   

   It’s impressive to see how far v6′s have come in the last few years. I remember my dad’s old Camry v6 only had 190hp, and it takes my 96 DeVille 4.6Liters of V8 to match the numbers of this modern Cadillac . Granted it still manages 17/27, but to get that out of a v6 is mind-blowing. Wish I had the money for this car:/ Keep up the perfect work!

---