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.
Acura TL - Cadilac CTS
Jan 12, 2008
5 Replies
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!
DC
I remember those well -- had a 71 454 Vette back in those years - and a Honda CB 750-4.
On Jan 12, 3:06 pm, "tww1491" wrote: snip
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.
That's a surprise -- a Cadilac a driver's car.
Surprising but true!
-- Russ Panneton snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com Nederland, CO "Too bad ignorance isn't painful"
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required