With all of the media hype about the new Cadilac CTS, I ran a "what if"
through Edmunds vs an Acura TL. Typical of GM, the CTS presents a array of
options to "build it" up over the standard car --- leather over pleather
(leatherette from the days of a Volvo 240), sunroof, automatic and so forth.
By the time you get it up to the standard TL the price runs close to $40k,
which is well in excess of the base TL. Given the dubious
quality/reliability of Caddys in the past -- supposedly better now -- I have
to wonder what the fuss is all about. I guess I must be missing something.
Thanks for the comparison.
GM is GM is GM is GM.........(forever).
The press & Chevrolet are now trying to pass off the new Malibu as a
Camry & Accord killer. Yeah it looks nice, but it's still a Chevy and
they are still part of GM and they still build inferior cars.
Oh for my 1966 Impala SS 396. Now that was a car!
As transportation the TL is superior but the new CTS is a far better
driver's car. You are certainly correct that the heavily discounted TL
is much less expensive than an optioned CTS and it would be hard to
argue against Honda reliability (except for those transmissions).
Then again, as transportation, the 2008 Honda Accord I4 is a better
bet than the TL (using total cost of ownership and reliability as the
criteria). My mother complains about the TL's poor in-town mpg but
otherwise loves the car.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.