Let me quite firmly state my opinion on the subject in question: I believe this is the most beautiful station wagon ever made. Station wagons are adored by enthusiasts, but often maligned by the general public. Part of that could be the need to eschew what our parents and grandparents drove, which also explains why minivans have become vehicle non grata. However, one must also consider the simple fact that most station wagons are hardly beautiful.
Yes, I know: the whole world is in the throes of a torrid love affair with crossovers. Crossovers, by definition, are basically jacked-up wagons. Is any station wagon currently for sale really considerably uglier than a crossover? Probably not. But there is little incentive to buy a conventional station wagon today. Firstly, as the result of a vicious cycle, there are very few new station wagons for sale, at least in North America. Why don’t people buy station wagons? There aren’t many to buy. Why aren’t there many to buy? People don’t buy station wagons. It’s almost like a chicken/egg scenario. The 1980s represented a boom time for minivans, which subsided in time for SUVs to roar to the top of the sales charts in the 1990s, before paving the way for crossovers in the 2000s. It’s hard to speculate, but could station wagons return as the family vehicle du jour? Time will tell.
Secondly, in the quest for practicality, most station wagons just end up coming out… dull. If you make the design too svelte, you run the risk of cutting into vital interior and loading space dimensions, and thus undermining the main reason to purchase a station wagon. And even if it is no less attractive than a crossover, you don’t enjoy the same command seating position or the vague suggestions of off-road ability.
Tastes always vary when it comes to design, and you could certainly make the argument that another station wagon is the most beautiful ever made. For example, how about the 1957 Buick Caballero I photographed recently? Its hardtop design is exotic nowadays, and it has just the right amount of 1950s frosting and gingerbread without being sickeningly sweet.
Dodge’s Magnum is a striking station wagon and one that experienced moderate commercial success in the station wagon’s darkest hours.
Even more recently, the Mercedes-Benz CLS Shooting Brake may have dubious practicality but boasts stellar proportions.
Still, the CTS Sport Wagon has just the right combination of athleticism, elegance, bravura, proportion and practicality. Starting from the front, you’ll notice the sharp detailing. There are no extraneous feature lines or overwrought creases, just subtly flared arches, a trapezoidal egg-crate grille and air dam that looks modern while making a nod to the past, and crisp, geometric features. There’s just enough chrome to look upscale without steering into gauche.
Moving to the side, you’ll notice the short front overhang and athletic stance. There is the obligatory fender vent, as was oh-so common in the mid-2000s, but it is pleasingly integrated into the design and doesn’t look like an afterthought (I’m looking at you, 2008 STS).
From the side-on view, you can see that although the belt line rises, it avoids looking slab-sided like its coupe sibling, which I would suggest is the least integrated design of the second-generation CTS family. There are the typical 2000s styling elements, like a fairly high belt line and a thick D-pillar, but it avoids looking like a caricature. It also avoids the typical wagon affliction of looking too long and boxy; the rising belt line and athletic stance instead make it look like a sprinter, crouched forward and waiting for the starter pistol to fire.
Much of what I’ve described so far would apply to the beautiful CTS sedan, too, but it is at the rear where the wagon makes its strongest statement.
A contemporary 5-Series wagon is not an unattractive car, but its squared off rear makes the wagon look like an afterthought.
The E-Class wagon is a little better, but it still looks like it was designed with far more deference to interior dimensions than to style.
The CTS wagon, though, looks like it received the same time and attention to detail in terms of design as the sedan did. The angular lines converging around the license plate are appealing and resemble those same features on the coupe. The tail lights, though, are a wagon signature: great, bold and paying homage to Cadillac’s iconic tail fins of the 1940s and 1950s without looking like a retro cliché.
Although we are in an era of touch screens and haptic feedback switchgear, the CTS wagon’s interior still looks modern and appealing. The dash flows pleasantly, there is no excess of buttons and the wood trim is used elegantly albeit sparingly. Miniature dual LCD screens bracket the switchgear, and the pop-up navigation unit cleverly juts slightly out of the dash, when not in use, to serve as a display screen for the audio system. An elegant analog clock is the final touch that elevates this interior above its German and Japanese rivals.
The CTS-V Wagon has a racier front fascia, with a mesh grille and air dam, more aggressive bumper and fog light assemblies and a raised hood. Such affectations could pollute the purity of a design, but the V successfully avoids that. It’s less elegant, sure, but damned if it doesn’t look like it means business.
Inside, the V featured piano black lacquer trim, a design trend that I’m sure we will look back upon and shake our heads (joining extraneous fender vents and perhaps LED DRLs). Available Recaro microsuede-lined buckets are a sporty touch, although the interior’s black-on-black theme isn’t as aesthetically pleasing as the regular wagon.
Perhaps it would be enough to admire the CTS Sport Wagon just for its looks, but fortunately it boasted all the strengths that made the 2008 CTS Motor Trend’s Car of the Year. Agile handling, a pleasant ride and available all-wheel-drive means the CTS is a treat to drive. The only major chink in its armor, dynamically, was the base engine: a 3.0 V6 with 270 horsepower but only 223 ft-lbs. Low-end torque was disappointing, and fuel economy no better than the 3.6 direct-injected V6 with 304 (later, 318) horsepower and 273 ft-lbs of torque. Still, both engines were available (at least initially) with an optional six-speed manual transmission or a six-speed automatic transmission. Firmer suspension tunes were also available if you were after greater poise, although ride quality suffered.
Of course, the V took things to a whole new level. Its supercharged 6.2 V8 thundered from 0-60 in under 5 seconds and put out a hefty 556 horsepower and 551 ft-lbs of torque. No all-wheel-drive was available, but both a six-speed manual and a six-speed automatic were available. A V8 wagon with a manual?! It seems such a foreign and exotic concept, and it is interesting that General Motors offers still a surprisingly large number of models with available manual transmissions.
The CTS, until its recently-launched third generation, straddled segments. Consequently, the CTS Sport Wagon was initially priced closer to the 3-Series wagon but sized more like a 5-Series. Of course, wagons always attract a niche audience. Of the 254,000 second-generation CTS models produced, just 7,000 wagons were sold despite the wagon’s fairly lengthy 2010-2014 run (the sedan was sold from 2008-2013). Of the 7,000, just 1,200 were CTS-V wagons. Make no mistake, those wagons will be collectors’ items one day.
The North American market, it seems, just wasn’t ready for a beautiful wagon. Showroom competition didn’t help matters: Despite its less dynamic chassis, much less attractive styling and questionable powertrain options, the current Cadillac SRX sold five times as many CTS Sport Wagons ever made in its first year alone. Still, for a relatively small investment, Cadillac designed and built the most gorgeous station wagon and, if nothing else, made some dog-owning or kid-toting enthusiasts very happy. Would it be too much to ask other automakers do the same?
I think the Caddy is one of the ugliest wagons – because it’s not a wagon. It is a bloated hatchback.
This is a wagon:
Never could warm up to the thick D-pillar & full-length tail lamps on the CTS Sport Wagon. Count me in with the faction that prefers the more restrained, elegant lines of the more traditional wagons. The Alfa 159 was a beautiful wagon, and among the small number of wagons offered stateside recently, the previous generation Legacy and the Audi A4 caught my eye.
I really like the Cadillac stationwagon, especially that it has a V8; but if your going to have the most beautiful wagon, start with a beautiful car, like this ’68 Corvette:
The Cadillac is ugly, there Ive said it. The Holden it was grafted onto is better looking but neither compare with the Peugeot 406 wagon a Pinin Farina classic.
The CTS has nothing to do with Holden. Where does this obsession with misidentifying cars as re-badges come from?
While I am not sure, I think the sigma platform was based on some Holden platform, but completely redesigned. The sigma’s were exclusive to Cadillac.
1966 Chrysler >>>
Horrendously, laughably ugly… and “relatively small investment” or no, the fact that GM chose to waste ANY precious funds on what was essentially a vanity project, during the company’s most perilous financial period (so far) demonstrates GM’s rampant, institutional ignorance. Kinda like a welfare mother buying an iPhone 6 instead of bread.
Today’s Cadillac sedans continue to carry on this unsaleable tradition. At least the ATS, CTS and upcoming CT6 are/will be somewhat more attractive as they gather dust on the lot.
The CTS is a very pretty wagon but the Alfa 159 is definately the most gorgeous ever.
I think the ’42 Chrysler Town & Country barrel back wagon is gorgeous:
http://flyingagarage.com/1942TC.html
Love, love the CTS wagon. I would take it in any form, but the CTS-V would be the “ne plus ultra”. However, my old Aztek serves as the modern station wagon for me.
I’ve come to like the Aztek’s rubbermaid styling over the years, perhaps because it puts function over form or maybe because it would never get stolen.
Either way, it’s grown on me.
I would go with “never gets stolen”… 😉
Part of me thinks about looking for another one. (I have a BIL in Georgia who do some scouting for me…)
OTOH, the wife really wants a MINI…
I seriously admire guys like you who love a car so much you keep seeking them out and own several. Like my old neighbors, one whose extended family drove NOTHING but Studebakers until 1972 and another who had a series of turquoise 66 big Fords that he was driving into the late 80s. Me, I’m too ADHD when it comes to cars, and always keep seeking new experiences (often learning new and expensive lessons).
JP, yes it’s a weird habit, I know. I’ve had multiples of several cars at different times over the years. I guess it’s knowing that you know the car and it’s quirks; based on your prior experiences with them you can predict what may happen to the cars as they age.
I’m not really against new learning experiences, as I’ve done that before, too. In fact, if something unfortunate happens to the Aztek, I may be in the market for something way outside of my norm.
A pretty car, yes. Best looking modern-era wagon, possibly yes.
Best looking ever? No
Certainly looks are subjective but that car cant stand in the same room as a Chevy Nomad, a post-war Town and Country, of any one of a number of American classic wagons from the 50s through the 70s.
Good article though and it certainly gets you thinking
If “beautiful” excludes handing, performance, etc.–and focuses just on a car sitting on display, to be ogled–then I’ll choose a high-end 40s woodie, like this Hudson:
I’m not crazy about Cadillac styling at all as of late. The discontinued DTS did look good. The CTS wagon just doesn’t work for me, that tree trunk of a D-pillar ruins it. Some wagons have that “wide at bottom-narrow at top” D-pillar that really stinks. As far as late model wagons, my favorite was the TSX wagon. The D-pillar was a bit wide, but the overall design was great, and it was a bulletproof Acura. Best wagon of all time? I’m going with the ’72 Country Squire. Running a close 2nd: ’88 Caprice woody.
what about the SAAB 9-3 wagon? Quite handsome…
I liked all the Saab wagons, especially the aborted Epsilon 9-5 SportCombi.
Here’s one I’ve never seen – their “Allroad” version, the 9-3X:
I wouldn’t quite say it’s the most beautiful wagon ever, but I think it’s definitely a beautiful car and I’ve always loved them. I don’t understand what the fuss is over the D-pillar either… to me it just looks unconventional and that adds to the charm, certainly not unattractive or obviously hacked together.
It’s too bad they couldn’t sustain the wagon body for the current generation. Guess the European sales are really crucial for a model like this. Mercedes-Benz doesn’t sell a whole lot of E-Class wagons in the U.S., but the people who do buy them tend to be loyal and wealthy, and that’s definitely an image booster for them. Personally, I like the CTS Wagon a little better… unless we’re talking CTS-V vs. E63 AMG (the ultimate stealth hotrod grocery-getter).
And this, the Audi RS6 Avant.
the C pillar design is all wrong.
I have the 2010 CTS Wagon and love it! Love this little car, don’t think of it as a station wagon so much as a caddie that looks kinda like a wagon…hope it does become collectable!
I just brought a ’14 CTS Sport Wagon home 2 days ago. 13k miles, awd, 3.6, Raven Black. I have been looking for this car for almost two years, and finally found the ultimate pristine version I have been searching for. The Cadillac dealer that I bought it from said they couldn’t give them away when they were new, but as soon as they were discontinued the phone started to ring. Mine had just come in on trade and was on the wash rack when I bought it over the phone. The salesman said they seldom are able to keep one, in premium condition, on the lot for over a day or two. I had to drive 600 miles round trip to pick up my car, which involved a couple of day’s delay for logistics, and my salesman said they could have sold my car a couple of times in the interim…
I have no problem with the thicker D-pillars that many are disparaging, I think they are the styling element that gives the car its outstanding good looks. However, the rearward view through the back hatch window is limited to a fault.The 3.6 provides plenty of power, though it is obviously no V-Series (what is??). I am an enthusiast with a ’96 Impala SS, BMW M-Roadster, an old E28 BMW 535i, and a Mercedes-Benz CLK350 Cabrio, all sharing space in my garage with my newly acquired Sport Wagon. In my view the Cadillac is every bit as handsome as the big Chevy Stealth Bomber, and the three Teutons, while still being an extremely capable and practical automobile. It is, I believe, being taught German lessons at night…!
I love my rare and beautiful Cadillac Sport Wagon.
Destined to be a classic for no other reason then Cadillac never made a production Wagon. Just love my 2010 CTS Wagon in Red. Has 45k miles now and only had to do regular maintenance and change out one battery.
Phenomenal car and always get asked what is it?
I love my 2010 Caddy Wagon. Bought it new and plan to keep it.