(first posted 10/5/2016) For us Curbavores, it’s always a satisfying moment to spot an older car that has since become a rare sight on the road. However, it’s infrequently the situation where this rare find is a car only several years old. With just 2,139 examples produced over four model years, the 2011-2014 Cadillac CTS-V sport wagon is undoubtedly one of General Motors’ rarest vehicles of the past decade, and a car already destined to become a collector’s classic.
While the CTS-V sedan and coupe each sold several thousand units in a typical year, the sport wagon sold in far fewer numbers. This was somewhat expected, as it’s no secret that Americans by and large dislike wagons. Even among the enthusiast crowd, the percentage of those willing to shell out big bucks for a high performance-oriented luxury wagon is very minuscule.
Some might have called Cadillac crazy for producing a CTS-V wagon, but considering all the tooling was available from the CTS-V sedan and regular CTS wagon, the V wagon probably seemed like a good idea to milk a few more sales at a heftier profit margin of the already slow-selling CTS wagon.
As many have said before, the short-lived CTS wagon was one of the most breathtaking wagon designs of all time. I dare call it “beautiful”, as its razor-sharp lines and creases make for a decidedly more brutish and masculine look than say, the more delicate-looking Mercedes-Benz CLS shooting brake. However, in the typical American muscle car way, the CTS wagon made no apologies for its in-your-face appearance, and is one of the best interpretations of this styling theme in recent years.
The CTS-V model of course added even more brashness with a more aggressive (and more attractive in your author’s opinion) front fascia, 19-inch aluminum wheels, Brembo brakes, dual-mode Magnetic Ride Control suspension, standard 6-speed manual (this one was an automatic), available Recaro leather/alcantara front seats ($3,400), and most importantly, its monstrous 6.2L LSA supercharged V8.
Pumping out 556 horsepower and 551 lb-ft torque, some 241 more horses than the regular CTS’s optional 3.6L V6 and fully 50% more torque, the V8 was capable of rocketing this hot wagon from zero to sixty in just 3.9 seconds. Contemporary reviews of the CTS-V wagon’s handling were just as positive as those for the CTS-V sedan and coupe, and the V wagon was already garnering the “collector’s car” label as examples were still trickling off assembly lines in Lansing.
The breakdown of those 2,139 CTS-V wagons produced by year is 395 for 2011, 575 for 2012, 416 for 2013, and 753 for 2014. Regardless of year, it’s safe to say that a few of these will be gracing the displays of museums or private car collections within a couple years, as the majority of them are now likely being pampered in the climate-controlled garages of their owners. I photographed this one in my gym’s parking lot, and can happily report that at least when I arrived it was parked as far as possible from the other cars.
Related Reading:
That has such a short tail it’s more like a hatchback…
I have to agree. It’s not like I would have been in the market for this, but it just isn’t a long roof without a long roof. The typically squared out rear side doors on wagons from times past frequently made them the best looking cars in their lines, and a square back significantly increases interior space and utility.
I have the same feeling every time I see a Dodge Magnum wagon, a car much more in my price range and likelihood to purchase. The back was squished down so much it simply didn’t interest me.
I dunno, not all classic American wagons were so bolt-upright. Like the 60 Ford, this Cadillac manages to do most of the utility of a normal wagon with a lot more swaggar and style.
drool
I hear you Dave. I like my wagons as brick shaped as possible. The new Mercedes wagon is close but has that rounded butt like the new Volvo. Flat roof and flat ass for me. This Volvo is perfect.
I also like this Nissan Stagea which was a version of our old Infiniti G35 not sold in America. The Dodge Magnum looks good too. Not a true brick but has that long roof and straight lines, nothing round and soft.
It’s a bit deceiving since the side glass is so small. In the side profile the tail looks pretty good sized, not at all like a hatchback. Not like an old Volvo or B-body, but still much better than most modern wagons and CUVs in my opinion.
That said, I’d still prefer it to be more squared off. But in an all-out luxury sport wagon like this I find the trade-off acceptable.
I don’t know, this looks much more like a proper wagon……
I won’t disagree, but that does not look sporty at all…perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. 😉
I’m not surprised to see this mentioned in the first reply. It looks like a hatchback to my eyes too (no bad thing).
Which raises the question I’ve had for years: What exactly *is* the distinction between a hatchback and a wagon these days? Why is the Audi A3 five-door a hatchback whereas the CTS-V is a wagon? The A3 looks more like a wagon than the more slope-backed CTS.
The A3 is much smaller. Look at the second picture in the story, then this one. The spoiler also makes the A3 appear more upright than it actually is.
The Malibu Maxx was actually called by GM as an extended sedan. I don’t remember how the State of Michigan actually classified it; I think it was a station wagon. I’ve had three Pontiac Azteks, the first one was classified as a sports (sic) utility vehicle, the other two were considered station wagons. Same car, just a few years apart…
You owned three Pontiac Aztecs? Wasn’t one enough? Just sayin.
The Malibu Maxx is another in-betweener for me. The wheelbase *was* extended compared to the regular Malibu sedan, but the overall length was a bit shorter due to less rear overhang. The rear seats, if slid rearward, still had your head positioned just ahead of the top rear glass which makes it feel hatchback-y to me, as does the slightly notched profile and the shorter-than-sedan rear overhang. Yet the long roof and large, squarish rear quarter windows scream “station wagon”.
Another car that toes the line for me is the Lexus IS SportCross (a.k.a. Toyota Altezza); the current Wikipedia article refers to it as a “hatchback/station wagon” or “hatchback-station wagon” twice but also just a wagon a few times so clearly I’m not the only one sensing that ambiguity. Which is what I think Lexus intended by calling it “SportCross” – a cross between a hatchback and a wagon. There isn’t much difference in length between it and the sedan. Car and Driver called it a wagon I remember. I don’t think Volvo would have.
Texas registered my A3 as a Station Wagon, and I’m not about to disagree with the great state’s DOT
The distinction between a hatchback and wagon? The wagon is about the same length as a trunked sedan, sharing the same basic underbody length. A hatchback is decidedly shorter.
Look at the Golf: the basic hatchback is quite short in the back (the Audi A3 shares the same basic body). The Golf wagon uses the longer underbody of the Jetta, which has a trunk.
This CTS is clearly a wagon, despite the small rear side window. If you were to look up its overall length, I’m sure it’s very close to that of the sedan.
Over on Jalopnik a few years ago, one of the writers came up with a set of rules regarding wagon vs. hatchback.
1. There had to be a separate window for the cargo area.
2. The roofline had to cover a minimum of 50% of the cargo area before breaking down into the tailgate.
I tend to use these rules when thinking about it. The CTS is clearly a wagon. There was a debate about the A3. While I consider the A3 a hatch, based upon those ‘rules’ it is a very short wagon.
I agree with Paul’s additional rule, that the wagon is at least as long as the trunk’d sedan it is based off of. Adding that as rule #3, then that disqualifies the A3 as a wagon.
Whatever rules we use, I think we can all agree that the distinction between these two body styles is more subtle than it once was.
It’s a lovely car, but It’s hard for me to see such a high-tech vehicle being a future classic… in 25 years it’ll be unfixable when a chip dies, or the entertainment system is obsolete, or a lot of that intricately molded plastic is unavailable. Or even more likely, some part of the emission-control gear is worn out and no longer legal to repair even if the parts can be found.
(Don’t peg me as a Luddite, cars are better than they ever had been…but the tech that makes them so amazing is what will keep them from lasting decades. And obviously if it’s kept off the road and under glass, this will take longer, but still…they won’t be on the road in 30 years.)
I have to agree. I’ve seen a lot of fairly new formally high end expensive vehicles sold to be broken up by the recyclers. Not because of collision or insurance related damage but they no longer run due to electronic problems and are not economically worth repairing.
Modern vehicles are so complex that once out of warranty they’re pretty much disposable. I guess that’s one factor in favor of leasing – you’re never out of warranty and will probably never have to buy so much as a set of tires. But then you have a perpetual car payment.
It’s curious that at a time of increasing environmental awareness we’re blindly producing items that can’t be economically repaired so soon after being produced. It’s not just cars, but appliances, electronic consumer goods in general. We just replaced a washing machine that lasted 25 years; I think we chose a good one, but I wonder how long the new one will be serviceable?
How long is the warranty
I think I have to disagree that modern cars will be unsavable in the future. Things have changed. A chip doesn’t matter -it’s the software inside the chip. It that’s available then a substitute for the chip can be made. As for unobtainium plastic parts -see 3-D printers. 3-D metal printers are here and getting better and cheaper all the time.
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/sub-4000-metal-3d-printer-33474/
Can be and will be are two different things. And there may be licensing issues too as the hardware and software is proprietary. Who is going to make a replacement for a head unit that is integrated into car controls like HVAC? Who is going to do that programming? How many shade tree DIY’ers are going to be willing and capable of diving that far in-depth? Heck, Tesla will disable your car if you try servicing it yourself.
I’m finding that even with my relatively base F-150 XLT repairs are getting to be ridiculously expensive. And that’s just basic drivetrain stuff.
Most of those electronic modules are easy to get remanufactured for cars going back as far as the 80’s. One advantage with GM and some of the other large manufacturers is that they tend to use generic modules that only differ in programming. 20 years from now you would probably have more trouble finding the unique trim pieces for a CTS wagon then anything mechanical or electronic.
Agree totally Bob. What I see is a very difficult to locate tail lamp lens that fits only this model….good luck!
Like Lokki mentioned above–3D printing. The technology is still in its early stages and has already been used for some remarkable purposes. Once the range of available materials expands, then things like hard-to-find trim will only require a template and a printer. Structural items may still be outside the realm of the home user but industrial 3D fab shops will certainly start to appear. “NLA” will become an acronym of the past.
I agree…where theres a will, theres a way. I hate all this over complicated tech with dubious benefits also. But to be fair, the Mopar LX’s have had those dumb TV screens for over 10 years now, with few instances of failure. That said, the HVAC isn’t integrated into it, and you can in fact retrofit the head unit without the nav screen if it were to fry itself.
Another thing to consider is that as ‘real’ cars with V8s and rwd (the stuff that appeals to gearheads who will get our hands dirty) are being regulated into the minority in favor of boring appliance eco-blobs, there’s more motivation to maintain and preserve the good stuff. The 80’s focus on fwd econocrap had the benefit of fueling aftermarket and cottage industries dedicated to keeping the classic muscle cars (and even related lesser models) going. While it’s a minority, a LOT of us won’t be forced into electric pods. That minority also has a loud voice, passion and most importantly…MONEY.
Yeah, those “dumb TV screens” like what is in my Town & Country are the way to do it because you can replace them. And I might, simply because it’s a lot more annoying to use than the aftermarket unit in my pickup. A lot of modern infotainment screens are now an integral part of the car. It’s cheaper to put controls on a touchscreen than to engineer physical controls, so I expect things will get worse. Like a Tesla model 3, which does practically everything through a touchscreen.
Mopars have done it the ‘least badly’, since as you pointed out they can be replaced. However, the going rate is around $2K. NO THANKS. I did some probing on the LX car forums… the non-screen head unit is backwards compatible and likewise you can ‘upgrade’ to the screen if your car wasn’t so-equipped. They don’t rely on it for the HVAC controls.
Now the ’15 and newer Charger/Challenger/300 have the main gauge pod in an LED screen format as opposed to the a mechanical gauge. So we’ll see how that lasts. But again, 10 years plus in and failures are still fairly low.
My daily is nearly 20 now it has far more comuterisation than many much newer cars and it all still functions as it should including the very complicated self leveling suspension, some of that stuff is very reliable. YMMV.
My daily is nearly 20 now it has far more computerization than many much newer cars and it all still functions as it should including the very complicated self leveling suspension, some of that stuff is very reliable. YMMV.
I had the privilege to assemble them.
You did nice work.
Thank you! I’m very happy with my manual Vagon!
I’m with you on this being one of the most beautiful wagons of all time. It’s definitely in my top-3 which would also include the original AMC Hornet Sportabout. It’s almost jewel-like in its angles and facets, especially from a rear three-quarter view. And yes – I also think the super-rare CTS-v variant featured here will be super-collectible for all the right reasons.
It’s a cool wagon, no doubt! Good for those who have one.
For my taste though it is a bit too much in my face. I personally am smitten with the Mazda 6 wagons. The Mazda 6 wagon looks even better than the Mazda 6 sedan. However, they are less likely to achieve collector status than the Cadillac.
I think it was a Car and Driver article (maybe Automobile), but someone from GM flat out said “we built this car for the reviewers, we don’t expect to sell a lot of them to the general public.”
And, of course, the reviewers paid them back by giving the line excellent reviews. Which was the whole purpose of this exercise in the first place.
I recall the tone of that conversation in several magazines. And the writers did show their love.
A good business move, that has huge fringe benefits for those of us who like wagons.
The first commenter noted it looks like a hatchback. I agree.
It is not long enough to seem like a wagon.
A wagon, to me, is something with a enclosed, defined, large, long load area behind the second seat. Recent collectible (and classic) ones include the great W124 and the Roadmaster Estate Wagon.
I just have a hard time thinking of this fine car as a wagon.
It’s no Roadmaster, but I don’t think the cargo area is too bad. It’s got twice the space of the sedan. Remember this is not a large car to begin with.
My reason for driving a TSX Sport Wagon is just to have a larger opening than is available on most cars today. I don’t care how it’s defined, I just want a opening that I can fit some larger items thru.
You make a good point–with the fastback roof angles of so many sedans, it’s not the side of the trunk but the loading area. My wife’s Forte Koup is a good example–the trunk is actually impressively large, but the opening is so small due to it’s stubby lid that it’s hard to make full use of the space.
I learned this when I couldn’t fit a plastic lawn chair into the trunk of a rental Camry.
I’ll be the contrarian here. To me this car is an example of Cadillac’s myopia. German sport wagons sold in minuscule numbers in the states, but because they were German and because buff book writers loved them, Cadillac had to waste money to build one. Writers gushed and buyers yawned. Meanwhile, the Germans were laughing all the way to the bank thanks to strong SUV sales at the heart of the luxury market–Mercedes ML, GL, GLK, BMW X5 and X3, Audi A5 and A7, Porsche Cayenne were all huge hits with the intended large target audience and very profitable. Instead of competing head on with those products and creating a true world-beater right-sized Cadillac SUV, we got the lackluster SRX and this useless vanity exercise of a Cadillac sport wagon. Remember when people thought the “last” Eldorado convertibles were going to be nearly priceless collectibles? I can’t imagine this wagon, even in “V” guise, ever being more than a curiosity.
Car & Driver rated the first generation SRX #1 in the luxury sport utility comparison tests for a number of years. I was interested in buying a 2012 CTS wagon (preferably with the turing package), but no nearby dealers had one. One dealer with a left over 2011 seeming did not want my 2007 SRX. My SRX lasted almost a month after I traded it for an ATS before someone bought it. Probably it spent a couple of weeks before getting cleaned up for the used car lot. The dealer with the left over 2011 is no longer a Cadillac dealer….
New SUV buyers (lessors) disagreed with the buff books on this one. All the imported SUVs I mentioned sold well and were considered status symbols–the SRX just was not in that same category. This was when C&D (and others) started fawning over Cadillac to such a degree that their opinions lost credibility with many readers/buyers.
The first SRX was at least a more legitimate contender against the German SUVs, even if it lacked the looks, material quality and brand cachet of those makes. However, the second generation SRX was not much more than re-skinned Chevy Equinox, hardly premium at all, though sales numbers did go up because it was relatively cheap.
Still, rather than taking the low cost route with a shared low-end crossover platform, Cadillac should have doubled down on making a world class premium SUV to fight the Germans in the emerging heart of the luxury vehicle market. But Cadillac copped out and made an underwhelming CUV, a tarted-up Chevy Suburban and an incredibly low volume sport wagon.
GN, I think you’re walking down both sides of the street on this one. The first SRX was a very capable vehicle for its intended role, although a little small inside. It was a rear-wheel drive platform with a longitudinal engine and good weight distribution. But it was an enthusiast vehicle, and did not turn out to be a popular one.
Cadillac shifted gears and created a far inferior vehicle that hit many of the popular requirements, and over time it became the number 2 most popular luxury SUV, outselling every single one of the competitors you mentioned on a monthly and yearly basis. The only luxury SUV to outsell it was the Lexus RX which was it’s original target to my understanding.
So yes, the CTS wagon while beautiful, was relatively useless as a people or stuff hauler, and was a dead-end from a sales perspective.
The 2nd Generation SRX, however, while a heavy, harsh riding, underpowered and thirsty vehicle was a significant sales success, 2nd only to the Lexus for sales volume.
My issues with Caddy’s SUV strategy center around brand image and the need for Cadillac to produce genuinely world class vehicles (against all metrics, not just handling) to be credible as a top-tier luxury brand. The first generation SRX was a step in that direction, but let down by awkward styling and problematic material quality that did little to convince import SUV intenders to consider Cadillac. The second generation could have worked to address those shortcomings and been a more legitimate competitor to the Germans. However, by setting the Lexus CUV as the target, Cadillac aimed lower instead. Sure, the Lexus sells in volume, but it is more of a cushy tall wagon than anything else–really positioned where Buick competes, along with Lincoln, for the somnolent soft-roader crowd. My bias is that Cadillac should compete in the top leagues of the market, and the SRX–even the newest one– is just not there.
So if Cadillac’s goal is to be Buick (a problem, since Buick still exists to be Buick), then products like the SRX are OK, and can compete with Lexus et al. But I think Lexus today is arguably more of an “upper middle” brand than a true prestige brand like Land Rover, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW and Audi. Where is Cadillac’s version of the Macan? Why is there no sophisticated, right-sized Mercedes GL/Range Rover fighter form Cadillac? (the super-sized glitzy Suburban clone doesn’t count…) Where is the Range Rover Sport/X5 alternative? Go to the top zip codes around major markets in the U.S. and those are the vehicles that are considered the “best” among affluent buyers, and that is where I think Cadillac should be striving to compete and win.
I’m not here to defend all things Cadillac, but to say the Escalade doesn’t count is ridiculous. I sold Cadillacs in Potomac/Bethesda Maryland, and I can tell you they are very popular.
Mercedes GL/GLS 2016 sales through sept: 21,244
Cadillac Escalade 2016 sales through sept: 26,687
The funny part, GN, is that I agree with you that Cadillac’s focus on cars was a mistake, but I think they are now rectifying that with a more broad focus.
One more item to share however: According to this article, Cadillac has the highest average transaction price in the luxury sector http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/04/cadillac-contributed-roughly-15-billion-in-revenue-1-1-billion-in-profit-for-gm-in-2015/
Ha, ha, yes I know Escalades are popular, but as an over-sized, very American, in-your-face SUV. I also think that a lot of customers understand that it is a Suburban, just an ultra expensive one (that being the appeal). As for more bespoke luxury intenders, I still argue that there is a big pool of potential customers that Cadillac is missing. For example, I’m not sure that many Range Rover prospects cross shop the Escalade…
To be a global competitor in high-end SUVs, Cadillac needs to serve up something more sophisticated but still reasonably sized and not blatantly shared with lesser GM divisions. Look at Bentley with the Bentayga–I know the price point is way too high, but it is interesting that they are looking to capture the cream-of-the-crop of SUV buyers and expand their range. Imagine if Cadillac built a more affordable but wonderfully competent and luxurious high-end SUV that could be compared with the far pricier Bentley! A move like that would re-energize the Cadillac brand far more than any of the flagship sedans (shrinking category) that they are contemplating.
I always enjoy your perspective on what Cadillac is and what it could be… maybe one day they’ll deliver something that would excite us both.
Yep, the CTS-V was a vanity exercise. I never even saw the point of the regular CTS wagon and agree that they need some major work on their CUV/SUV lineup.
Personally though, I’m still waiting for an edition of the CT6 with more wood trim and a hood ornament, dammit!
+1 Matt. The Escalade is freaking awesome. Square, strong and masculine which appeals to men and women. I liked the original SRX for its boxiness and utility but it lacked strength — too narrow and tall.
The updated first generation SRX was a fairly nice vehicle. I think what Car and Driver liked more than anything was the handling. What I liked was the station wagon like body although I really did not need that much. My 2007 SRX had the optional 20 inch sport package, which replaced the ugly front end grill with something more V series like.
I have only ever seen 2 of these beauty’s over the years.
I was impressed both times, my guess is they will become a collectors vehicle in the future.
I hate to spoil the love-in here, but this car has a very serious styling faux pas: they were too cheap to give the rear doors a new upper frame and glass, and recycled the sedan doors, with their very steep forward slant and the little extra window. That also forced the slant of the D Pillar to match it.
That’s a major no-no when designing a proper wagon. It makes it look like it was done on the cheap by an aftermarket conversion outfit, or something like that. Not at all organic or classy. Not something you’d find on a European sport wagon.
I think it looks better than the first generation SRX, but I agree that the C and D pillars are not great. The D pillar I think limits visibility, although I am not sure. I did drive the 2011 a short distance and then went back to the dealer to see what they thought. I kind of wanted the Recaro seats, which were not available on 2011’s.
The current XT5 is similar to this, but the C pillar is perhaps better. The XT5 does not have a sedan counterpart. The XT5 is a C1XX platform.
I agree. The side glass ruins an otherwise nice looking wagon.
You mean like the Volvo 240? Once the fact that the top of the 240’s door was curved was pointed out to me (either here or at AUWM), it was something I couldn’t unsee. At least GM made the rear quarter windows line up with that, rather than have the disjointed styling situation on the 240.
I’d say it’s far less egregious for GM to not have sprung for a new door frame on a low volume model in modern times than it was for Volvo to have done the same on a bread and butter model that was in production for over 20 years, when reengineering such things cost much less, even account for inflation.
Comparing Volvo in 1964 and GM today is really a stretch. Volvo was a small independent Swedish company, and their resources really were stretched. But here’s the difference anyway: the rear door of the 140 series was designed to be interchangeable from the get-go, which necessitated a rather minor compromise at the top rear quarter, where it dips a wee bit.
Back then wagons were genuine utilitarian vehicles, not at all like these recent stylish sport wagons from Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volvo and Cadillac. These are expensive luxury cars, and design is a critical factor. It certainly wasn’t too expensive for the Germans to tool up for a new door upper. It looks cobbled up, and I’m hardly the only one that’s noticed. It may well have played a part in the lack of success this wagon had.
FWIW, with modern computer design, modeling and tooling,I will argue that it’s decidedly cheaper nowadays to make changes like this to a car. Which of course explains the endless proliferation of various body variations, especially in Europe. It was much more tedious/expensive to engineer and tool changes to a body back in the day. Which is why Volvo couldn’t afford it.
Note that Volvo does not do that nowadays, and hasn’t ever since the 740 series. And they’re still a whole lot smaller than GM. 🙂
The CTS wagon was delayed two years due to lack of funds. Gm was going through money problems and the economy was bad at the time this car was launched. There were also non v wagon that were produced for export. A diesel for export never made it into production due to bankruptcy.
This was a delectable idea during the rumor stage but I too was let down by the rounded roofline dictated by rear doors shared with the sedan. That rarely works. It did for the Volvo 7-series but remember what those doors looked like on the sedan? Took me a long while to get used to that. Like Paul says usually you need two rear door designs to make both bodystyles work.
It all makes sense when you hear the GM guy say they built these for reviewers not actual buyers. That’s code for they gave us very little budget to make this thing i.e. unique rear doors would have killed it.
I like it but would have liked it a lot more with a real wagon shape. These products tend to get made only when there is a Bob Lutz type of person around and judging by Brendan’s enthusiasm I would say it was a good call. I believe Doug Demuro had one.
I believe Doug Demuro had one.
The proves that building the CTS-V wagon was a great success. 🙂
You’re right, this is a classic Lutz-mobile: show-offy and macho, but not polished and as was so often the case, a sales flop.
I dunno Paul that CTS-V wagon was pretty polished except for the outside. I think the team at GM knew the sales would be limited but gathered up enough support to do it anyway, for the sheer audacity of it all. I mention DD because as you know he buys a different car every few months to write about and had one of these. It was one of his faves. If young enthusiasts like Brendan and Doug like the CTS-V that counts for a lot even if they don’t sell many. I think that was the goal with this car.
The ultimate Lutz mobile for me was the Solstice. Talk about lack of polish sheesh. The CTS-V line, including the wagon, was one of his better ideas.
As a lover of wagons, and of muscle cars, I do love the CTS-V wagon. Yes, the styling of the rear windows (due to sharing sedan doors) isn’t the best. If you want a muscle wagon, that’s not going to prevent you from getting one. It’s targeted to a very small slice of the buying public (me).
One day I would love to add one of these to compliment the muscle wagon that I already have. Especially with the manual transmission, the one thing I wish my Magnum had. Those prices need to come down though, A LOT…. but I’m not sure that they will. They are still commanding a serious premium over their sedan and coupe counterparts. This isn’t some wagon that no one knows what it is. Any place that is selling one knows exactly what it is, and knows that they can charge the premium for it.
Just go look at the prices of used CTS-V wagons vs. sedans. Its insane.
I think you’re right on the money. The fact that someone actually built a nearly 600 hp wagon,gave it aggressive muscle car styling and with an available manual, no less…that’s like a dream come true. Yes, you can tell that the rear doors carried over from the sedan, but to my eye it still looks great, so why nit pick something so trivial? For those who disagree, I’d refer them to that soggy looking Benz that Dave B posted up. A proper wagon, yes…built and styled for proper stuffy old money octogenarians, just like the Caddys of yore. Definitely NOT what Cadillac was going for, for once.
Im a fellow fan of the Magnum…an absolutely brilliant car in every way. But I can also see where GM arguably took a great idea and raised the ante. To that end, I think FCA is leaving a lot of money on the table by not resurrecting the Magnum. Limit it to Hemi only from the 345 up to the Hellcat and offer a manual. Profit and bragging rights….all you can handle.
Dude, what did you smoke for breakfast? 🙂
Seriously, that MBZ wagon Dave B posted is like from 25 years ago. Are you familiar with what the current AMG E 63 wagon looks like?
Well, if you guys salivating over the CTS-V wagon and Magnum RT wagon had actually been buying them, they might still be around.
I did try to buy a 2011 after the 2013 were in production, thinking that I should get a good deal, but the dealer had other ideas, like going out of business. I finally realized that the ATS had better goodies like adaptive cruise control…
That’s much better. But as a rule, Im not a fan of Mercedes’ styling…never have been. Something about it comes off as more of a German version of the traditional American pseudo-lux that goes over so well in the Midwest. BMWs and Audis, OTOH take it in a much sportier and more aggressive direction. But taste is subjective, your mileage may vary.
Actually the Magnum was pulling its own weight just fine. The Charger stole a lot of its thunder. But there was one exec within Chrysler who signed off on the Magnum’s death…who was shortly thereafter let go from the company, so there’s that. Once the Challenger was announced it was an issue of capacity. But I have it on good authority that there are a LOT of people within Chrysler who want to see it brought back. In a way it sort of has, in the form of the 3rd Gen Durango…
I’m with you on Mercedes styling… overwrought and trying too hard. If that Mercedes star in the grille gets any bigger, they’ll have lay it flat on the hood.
Agree with Paul on his point that for them to be successful, someone has to buy them. My ultimate garage trio would be:
– Magnum SRT8 (already have)
– CTS-V wagon
– E63 AMG wagon
At the time that each have been produced, they are way out of reach. $45K for the Magnum in 2006, $75K for the CTSV in 2011, and $100K+ for the AMG wagon. I have to wait for the depreciation curve to hit the sweet spot before I can buy.
When I play the “If I win the lottery game”…. the first car I would go buy is an AMG E63S wagon in matte pearl white. No questions about it, and people look at me as if I sprouted horns.
Since we are talking AMG E63 wagon. Fun fact, you will never just find one of those on a lot. The E63 wagon is special order only.
I like these, but then I like the combo of sport and utility and rear drive and stick shifts and expensive. Of course, I am in the large group of people who have never bought any such thing.
The unfortunate side-effect of this retrospective is reminding me of how much Cadillac is like some of these once-great sports teams who are in perpetual “rebuilding mode”.
If I could afford one, it would be in my garage today! Preferably with the manual transmission.
I think what makes these kinds of exercises such sales duds despite positive reception is that there’s always a pent up demand for such a vehicle(which can bolster resale for those that are produced) but when an automaker decides to cave to this vocal group they hedge their bets to max the profit by putting it under a premium umbrella, cushioning the blow somewhat in the event of a flop, effectively making a self fulfilling prophecy by pricing it way out of reach of the actual potential customers, and claiming “well no one bought our cool wagon, so there’s no market”. The platform availability is troublesome because there just aren’t any RWD/stick platforms available from affordable brands, but that’s key, fun vehicles and premium vehicles should be mutually exclusive. There’s also the factor that the wagon crowd is quite diverse and with dwindling choice nitpickery goes through the roof “that’s not real wagon”, “the roof is too sloped”, “why doesn’t it come in brown!”.
I’ve never been much of a wagon or hatch guy myself, but I will concede these were very attractive, only other wagon I truly lust over is the Hornet sportabout and the many itterations of it to follow. This design is about the closest modern interpretation to that I can identify, but me personally, I’m in at AMC prices, not Cadillac. I sure do love seeing them though!
Not sure about this one, looks wise. The whole back end looks like an after-thought and is heavy-handed affair. Jack it up and put plastic arches on and it’s almost like an SUV. But I’d have one for the performance and not worry about the looks…
When you sent me these pics a while ago, I was hoping you would write this up!
I’ve always considered these one of my dream cars. The wagon bodystyle just makes it even more exotic. However, now that I actually own a wagon I’m realizing they don’t really fit my needs. I rarely use the space, I can’t stand hearing things rolling around back there, and if your tailgate has a rattle it will annoy you no end! So as beautiful as these are – and you linked to my piece where I called these one of the most beautiful wagons ever – I think I would probably stick to a CTS-V sedan.
My 2007 SRX was still rattle free with over 90,000 miles (144000 km).
I would guess you didn’t have a sunroof!
Oh yes there was a sunroof, quite large. My SRX was a premium trim level, with nearly everything except the rear DVD entertainment system.
I have always been a fan of these cars, but never a purchaser. Too far out of my price range, but something to aspire to. Which is what I guess the car’s purpose was…
This Jaguar XF “Sportbrake” is pretty cool.
Did they not just chop the load area down from a Holden sport wagen with the HSV powertrain and add some Caddy styling cues and call it good?
CC effect…just saw a black CTS-V wagon tonight.
That’s not a Cadillac. And it will never be a ‘classic’.
Even if it doesn’t fit your antiquated notion of what a Cadillac is, I fail to see how it won’t be a classic one day. Why not? Because you say so?
Cadillacs built before 1990 will ALWAYS set the standard
by which current “Cadillacs” will be measured. I’m
an automotive conservative!
“Antiquated”, ehh…? G R R R R..
The best Cadillac’s were before World War Two.
Perhaps surprisingly, I’ll admit to quite liking this, apart from the thick D pillar.
The business case for buying one, especially new, was probably always pretty weak, but I can definitely see an appeal, and an American-ness that works
So. Much. Want.
As soon as these were announced I was in love–the 2nd-gen CTS was an immensely desirable car anyway, to my eyes Cadillac’s return to making cars people under 60 actually want to drive. And then upping the ante of the already muscular 1st-gen V with an even more powerful 2nd-gen? And then the coupe, admittedly a love it or hate it affair, but an incredibly distinctive one. And finally, the piece de resistence, a wagon, Cadillac’s first factory station wagon in the entire brand history. With this, the -V super variant, to compete with the E63 and RS6 wagons. Just brilliant. Love the styling (I like the steeply sloped rear compartment, never noticed the window compromise), love the interior, love the drivetrain and the chassis.
Believe me. If I could have properly afforded a $75K car while these were in production, nothing could have stopped me. (I say properly because we were also saving up for a home down payment, so *technically* there was a point where I could have. But I’m not an idiot. Plus my wife would have left me, or killed me, or more likely both, and dead men can’t drive their Cadillacs.) Maybe one day.
I’ve long lusted after the CTS long roof. But when it came time to put down actual dollars on a lightly used anti-SUV, price and GMs reputation for half-baked efforts steered me toward Japan. Appropriate that the last Japanese station wagon with sporting aspirations would come from Mazda. Zoom Zoom!
Can’t fault that choice at all, and I might find myself in one of those eventually (my next car is likely to be in the “used wagon sub $10K” category). I have often wondered, though, why they didn’t make the Mazdaspeed package available on the wagon, taking it from sporting aspirations to actual sports.
We’re just lucky we got any 6 wagon for a few years. The Touring package gives nice rubber and stiff suspension. But the V6 with 215hp on tap is only ok.
I admit that I find these CTS wagons very attractive, but pretty rare. More common are these early 2000’s SRX’s. I really like these, they are rear wheel drive, and they are very cheap, makes me think that they must have some mechanical problem waiting to ambush the next used car buyer. Still, I would buy one in a heartbeat as a hobby car. That’s what stopped me from buying one a couple of years ago. I wanted a reliable low mile used car. Not like my Seville was trouble free at the end. I really enjoyed my 5.0 Explorer so I imagine I’d love this Cadillac.
The V6 had timing chain issues. I’ve tried looking for V8s several times, and the few on the market were all high mileage, well over 100k.
What I bought instead of the SRX. I think that it qualifies as a wagon. Though I refer to it as an SUV around my Wife!
In the fifty-odd years between 1953 when Cadillac last offered a manual transmission (on the Series 75 chassis; it seems not good form to speak of the Cimarron) and 2004 when the option re-appeared, it would by most have been thought improbable or unthinkable that by 2013, one could buy a Cadillac with a clutch pedal but not such a Ferrari.
https://nihilistnotes.blogspot.com/search?q=Clutch