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?
It looks like a current model Holden Sport wagon with a Caddy front clip it may not be but the resemblance is uncanny.
Tough one!
Yes this wagon IS beautiful. But in my opinion not quite as beautiful as the Peugeot 203 wagon :-). Or the (European) Ford Granada series II wagon of the 1980s. Or the 55-57 Chevy Nomad. For instance.
Besides, this one doesn’t really say “Cadillac” like I think a Cadillac should. It could almost be, say, a rebadged Mazda 6. Which is beautiful too, and makes perfect sense… as a Mazda (I might soon pick up one of these, actually… I’m just SO tired of crossovers).
+1 on the Mazda 6 s.
You can’t be for real! Are you comparing the Caddy Wagon to a 203?
I’ve often wondered about getting a first generation SRX, lowering it and sprinkling in some aftermarket CTS suspension goodies as a “Proto-CTS” wagon of sorts.
The first generation SRX was a decent wagon. It was built on the same platform as the CTS, so I think the suspension was quite good. I am not sure what sort of upgrades you are thinking of. My 2007 SRX had the optional 20 inch wheels sport package which put 255 tires on all four wheels.
The Sigma chassis formed the foundation of the 1st Gen CTS & SRX and final Gen STS. Assuming good interchangeability, I would lower the ride height of the SRX with suspension cribbed from the sedans. There’s a enough of an aftermarket for the CTS that good choices for springs, swaybars and control arms can be sourced.
All this with the aim of making the SRX less of a “Crossover” and more of a CTS/STS sport wagon.
This about the same formula I’ve applied to my 1995 Caprice wagon with suspension goodies meant for the similar-vintage Impala SS sedans.
This CTS wagon is indeed a beautiful car and most likely an excellent vehicle in all regards. I would love to have one someday. Yummy!
However, I think the title of The Most Beautiful Station Wagon Ever is still held by the Alfa Romeo 159 SW.
🙂
A 159 wagon with the high output JTDm getting 45 mpg has to be the perfect road trip machine.
No Jaguar XF Sportbrake on sale in America?Nice as the Cadillac is it comes second to the Jag in looks,my favourite new wagon.
Disagree, rather like the lines of old Volvo 740/760 wagons.
Nice article – think I semi-agree. The Caddy is a very sharp looking wagon – but best overall I’d go back to the 70s – my vote would be the AMC Hornet Sportabout and the Volvo P 1800 ES.
For current models the new Golf Sportwagon is beautifully proportioned – best looking of all the Golf models IMO.
Hard to tell. I don’t know all the wagons of the past 100 years, if you count in the shooting brakes from the UK. (based on a Rolls Royce, for example)
Of our modern times I like this wagon the most, the Alfa Romeo 159 with the ti trim line. And preferably with the 3.2 liter V6 and AWD, known as Q4 in Alfa-language.
the Alfa 159 Sportwagons were in fact perfect from almost every angle.
All time, no. Without too much thought I can come up with a number of ’50s-early ’70s wagons I like better.
I will agree that the CTS is probably the best of the last 20-30 years and I’ll be surprised if anything better comes along any time soon. My only real nitpick with the CTS is that D pillar. It’s just too thick.
If I have to pick one top wagon, I’ll go with the ’72 Vista Cruiser.
Agree on the D pillar. But overall very nicely done.
Probably after the obvious declining sales of mainstream wagons ( Taurus/Sable ) Chrysler poked the niche market using Dodge Magnum but didn’t poke deep enough, and they threw the towel. GM figured Malibu Maxx wasn’t cool enough and the second shot was CTS wagon with plenty of promotions and exposure. ( I wonder why Matchbox tooled both Magnum and CTS wagon early enough to make sure they would show up in Walmart at the same time as the real cars )
Ford: I am going to try Flex instead after seeing how the other two failed. Damn, doesn’t work out neither.
Magnum was too blocky and truckish to appeal to the anti-SUV backlash. It’s also a shame the long wheelbase livery 300 wasn’t a part of the program from the start, maybe if the Magnum could’ve had those extra inches they could’ve given it third-row seating.
It isn’t ugly, but beautiful? Too chunky to be graceful. “Thick” styling works for trucks but in this case I think they were shooting for elegance and missed. And all the swoopy details are only trying to distract your eye from noticing said chunkiness. Kind of like a big girl with a bunch of makeup and jewelry.
Reliant Scimitar,if it’s good enough for Princess Anne it’s good enough for CC
Not sure what is the absolute most beautiful wagon ever, but I reckon it’s hard to go past the Citroen CX.
That Caddy is too sharp and angular to be truly good-looking, and the current Caddy face just looks clunky and contrived to me.
It’s just a modern car. Looks like all modern cars.
This is parallel to declaring that Ant Number 35437 is more beautiful than the 100000 other ants in the hive. They’re all ants. You can say that ants are beautiful, but you can’t distinguish one ant on esthetic grounds.
Really, the whole genre started to go down the tubes after Ant Number 35000. I blame liberal tree-huggers, the federal government and the black helicopter boys from the UN.
My faves:
Volvo Amazon
Chevy Nomad
Mercedes-Benz CLS
Volvo 855
Alfa Romeo 156
(in no particular order although the Amazon i probably at the top)
Modern wagons I’d nominate E34/39 BMW, post 2004 Audi 6 and Alfa 159.
Old wagons – too many to mention. But then again, beauty is in the eye… etc.
Clearly this is the one for you, William. You are overflowing with enthusiasm and everyone on this site knows that feeling. I hope you get your hands on one.
+1 on E34 and E39. I also like Volvo 850 T5 in canary yellow, Magnum (wish in had bigger cargo hold), latest E-Klasse and a new Ford Mondeo. Too bad we won’t ever see in on this side of the pond, due to a CUV profitability.
-1 on CTS. Don’t like angular shape and a compromised shape of a cargo hold. CTS looks more like a hatchback than a wagon.
Personally Prefer this one.
The European Honda Accord “estate ” from a few years ago.
Okay it has somewhat of a hearse feel to it..bot a fast hearse..and sometimes the wheels look a bit small.
Not sure if it ever went to the USA..I know this Honda was sold as an Accura.
So here it is.
We never go this generation Euro Accord wagon in the U.S. The following generation Euro Accord wagon was sold as the Acura TSX wagon in the U.S.
That looks awful to my eyes.
Mine too. It looks like a slightly squashed minivan.
The CTS wagon was certainly a good effort, but I never really cared for the taillights. Full-height taillights work on Volvos and the CR-V, but few other cars have been able to pull them off. The new Escalade is another car that they look out of place on.
I was actually always a huge fan of the Bangle-Butt 5-Series wagon. It looked just as aggressive as the sedan, and none of the sedan’s details were lost in translation.
As for the Dodge Magnum: Nope. Just Nope. There are few cars I hate with a passion, and the Magnum is one car that really hits a nerve for me. Since it came out, I have found it one of the ugliest cars in the 2000s, only helped by its horrid interior, tiny windows, and sagging roofline. To me, it always drew comparisons to a former athlete, now out of shape and all flabby.
I hate high tailights, especially the CRVs with the turn signals at the very top. Who watches the top of the car for signals? If you are immediately behind one they are out of your line of sight and that’s not good.
These, on the other hand, just extend up from below. Not only to I feel this looks better, it also functions better.
I especially appreciate the tail-light ‘fins’ on the 2010 -2015 SRX.
The Caddy of my youth always had some type of ‘fin’ and the SRX exercises a delicate seasoning of ’50s fin.
I’d like the Magnum so much more if it had actually been the Chrysler 300 Wagon that other parts of the world received:
The few of these I saw, I thought, looked like the further evolution of the Volvo wagons.
I’m not sure what makes a sportwagon a sportwagon but of the competition posted I like the looks of the Mercedes better.
Most beautiful wagon? I will take a ’75-’76 Pontiac Grand Safari, please, with plenty of di-noc, wrap around rear windows, clamshell gate, finlets, and a big V8.
As all the comments above make clear beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And, to my eye this Caddy is absolutely beautiful! Also, Lincoln is now getting ready to name their cars instead of using alphanumeric mumbo jumbo that I never did bother to learn. If Cadillac should do the same ( a move I would strongly support) what would be a great name for this wagon?
Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon.
The Caddy is indeed some sweet eye candy but for me, I’d go with the Volvo 1800 ES.
+1
I was going to go with the Falcon 2-door wagon but had forgotten about this Volvo.
+1
I like it but am not in love with it. I like the sport wagon concept but am surprised that sales were this low. The taillights don’t work for me at all.
Most beautiful? I have been smitten by the 1960 Chrysler Town & Country.
Good choice! What a clean but swoopy design that is.
This would be very welcome in my driveway.
In the very limited field of new wagons, I like the CTS and I have no complaints about the taillights. Best ever? I don’t think so. I’d second Jim in nominating the 1960 Chrysler… or the 1957 Buick in the article, a 1965-66 Chrysler or probably others in my chrome-and-fins biased opinion.
If we were to extend this to include one-off customs, I’d rather have the turquoise bullet-bird conversion or the plum-crazy Challenger conversion. Pictures of both abound on the internet. In fact, both cars have appeared here on CC in the same article:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake-1962-ford-thunderbird-sportswagon-conversion-whats-not-to-like-about-the-vista-bird-thunder-cruiser/
Chrysler wagon – I love that one too.
I like the ’61 front end just a little better, and the wagons kept the cool ’60 style taillights. 🙂
Never thought of that one – a great choice.
Ford Fairmont wagon, preferably minus wood trim. Escort wagon (US) of that era was good too.
I don’t know that I’d call the Fairmont beautiful, but it is a very clean design
I’m going to agree: it’s beautiful. I’ve been keeping my eyes on Craig for a CTS-V wagon with a manual. If only 1200 exist, and most of them probably automatics, it won’t be that easy of a hunt. William is correct: they’ll be classics in 30 years.
I love the idea of this car. I’m thrilled that Cadillac made the CTS into a wagon. I get excited when I see one. I’d take one over most luxury CUVs. I really do want to like them…
Ultimately, though, I just can’t dig the design. For my eyes, the taillights and d-pillar are dissonant to the rest of the car, and angular vehicles aren’t really my preference in general. I guess I’m not saying it’s ugly, but it’s not a design that I particularly like either.
That said, I can see the appeal, and can totally respect why someone would really praise the design. And there is no doubt that it deserves a future curbside classic label.
Really well-written analysis, and I’m sold on why the design works so well. One of my personal favorite wagons: the 1971 AMC Hornet Sportabout. I liked the Hornet in hatchback form, but the wagon configuration was the most enduring and best-looking.
Respectfully disagree (but great write-up). The Cadillac’s grille is just too massive, and as another has pointed out, the car is just too chunky to be the most beautiful station wagon ever. My vote would be for the previously mentioned Volvo P1800 ES, or maybe going back a few years, the first generation Chevy Nomad. Styling can obviously be very subjective, even polarizing. I know some don’t, but I like the Dodge Magnum, and think it’s great that they tried something different for the times. They just should have finished the effort.
Of all time: no.
Of the last little 5 years in North America: absolutely.
That being said, count me in amongst those with the aversion to the D-pillar. But I can ignore that for the CTS-V drivetrain!
sorry. i have to disagree. the d pillar is too thick and uneven to help the appearance. in my mind’s eye it takes away from the entire experience.
sat in one of these in the dealer showroom and found the interior to be smaller than i thought it would be. i could find a comfortable seating position but then the 2nd row was a tad short and the cargo area was smaller than i was used to (98 passat wagon). i noticed that the article says between a 3 and 5 series in size. i guess i would find a 3 series too small too.
i never did drive one. perhaps if i did some of these ‘shortcomings’ would have been remedied.
It’s too short for my tastes, looking more like a four door hatchback than a true station wagon. Am I right in assuming you cannot get one with a third row of seats? It looks as though there’d be no room.
“However, one must also consider the simple fact that most station wagons are hardly beautiful.”
If that is true, then most cars are hardly beautiful. I generally prefer the looks of the wagon to a Sedan. Perversely, For some reason I have always been attracted to cars that work. That makes the wagon and it’s sibling the sedan delivery very high on my list. I drove a 77 Impala wagon for various types of service and found it to be preferable to most of the trucks and vans I have used. I know that most people do not sweep chimneys or service air conditioners so YMMV.
I think everything you have shown looks just great.
Big fan of the Sport Wagon, mainly for what it is more than for its styling. It is a real wagon ( that Cadillac wasn’t afraid to actually call a wagon). GM had to know it would be low volume, but they built it anyway and even made it available with manual tranny. I believe it was aimed at the European market and GM generously sold it here, unlike some other models lime the Cruze wagon. I absolutely love that they have a muscle car version with 550hp and 6 speed stick. That is a dream car for me.
My wife was interested in a first Gen SRX and I tried to sell her on a CTS wagon. She had to have the third seat, though. We didn’t end up buying either one.
Love these. Absolutely love them! Most beautiful current? Hands down, no contest, absolutely. This is at the absolute top of my list for my personal next car, though I doubt I’ll be able to afford even a used one as my budget will be small.
Of all time? Oh, now that’s too hard to call. Entirely too many worthies to pick just one!
No, not the most beautiful at all. There’s something wrong with the treatment of the C & D pillars, it’s just awkward looking.
Among the most beautiful wagons ever produced: 1971-77 AMC Hornet Sportabout and 1978-83 AMC Concord/Eagle, and the original 1986-92 Ford Taurus. Some of the Chrysler wagons from the late ’50s were quite lovely too.
Beautiful, yes. I’ll agree with Brendan that the full height taillights don’t work well for me.
As noted, the first two gens of CTS straddled some lines between the BMW 3 and 5 series. The result was a sport sedan that sold on style and “driver’s car” credentials. As a sport sedan, it’s cramped rear seat was forgiven.
The third CTS has finally grown to a credible passenger car for four. The ATS has taken over the role as style / status symbol sport sedan.
The wagon, as a second gen car, had a pretty awful back seat, and was never going to make it into the driveways of the country club level soccer mom set. It’s a niche driver’s car – and quite beautiful. The SRX and Escalade are the successful Cadillac wagons thanks to their utility.
” The most beautiful Station Wagon ever ? ” .
Disagree by a long shot .
I almost once bought a 1937 Packard Woody Station Wagon for $700 .
There have been many others better looking , I have owned quite a few Wagons over the Decades .
-Nate
Packard wagon no styling as such other than the front clip.
I don’t really like the angular look of modern Cadillacs. It may be nice, but as for the most beautiful wagon, I’d say no. I’d rather have this:
For me the most beautiful estate has to be the Vauxhall Viva HB. Sporty lines, penned by Leo Pruneau around the time he was working on the ’65 Camaro, and elegant long windows and fastback shape when most estates were boxy.
http://files.uk2sitebuilder.com/uk2group53061/image/8.vauxhallvivahbbrochurev177407.671280×955.jpg
And I don’t care if it’s not a. expensive, b. practical or c. exotic (though these days it is d. rare as most have rusted away).
The best-looking wagon I know sits in my driveway. Here is a white one to better emphasize its utter sublimity.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Mazda3_hatchback_–_09-08-2009.jpg
I will confess to a brief but torrid infatuation with one of these, the same Red Mica color as yours. The problem was that there was not enough head room in the back to accommodate those strangely tall children that I begat. I would still happily drive one of those.
I absolutely loved the Protege5. One of the coolest wagons ever. Almost pulled the trigger, but the 98 Civic wasn’t old enough to be demoted to beater.
Recoiled at the Mazda3 wagon. Liked it a little better when they cleaned up the grill in 07, but still hated the instrument cluster. Then they introduced the grin, and I couldn’t run away fast enough. Looked at the latest iteration at the show a year ago: hate the instrument cluster, hate the wedge styling, hate the lack of visibility to the rear.
I also share your enthusiasm for the Protoge5. A friend bought one – he was a bass violin player and needed something that would accommodate his instrument. I am also with you on the Mazda3 since it became afflicted by the creepy clown face.
Passing on the P5 was a close call. I loved my old Mazda GLC. Most bullet proof car I ever had.
The P5 takes a rather odd size tire and I didn’t like the choices. Thought of switching to the 14″ that the Protege sedan used at that time, but the P5 had 5 lug hubs while the sedan had 4 lug hubs.
Then the decision got even harder. I worked for a Ford vendor then, and Ford controlled Mazda, so I qualified for the Z plan discount.
Then I went to the auto show in January 04 and the Mazda stand was handing out $500 off ducats.
I gave up, and checked stock of P5s on the Mazda web site. All gone around Detroit. The dealer in South Bend had two black ones….and I like black.
Off I went to South Bend. Found the P5s and a salesman. He unlocked one of them then went to get a demo plate. By the time he came back with the plate, I was climbing out of the P5 with a “someone killed my puppy” look on my face. Both of the P5s in stock had moonroofs. Not only did the moonroofs steal over an inch of headroom, the track hung down even lower, a V shaped hard ridge a small fraction of an inch over my head, with no more that the thickness of the headliner covering it. I would crack my head on that thing with every bump I hit.
I prowled Autotrader for several years after that, looking for a really nice P5 without a moonroof No such luck. Drove over to Battle Creek once to check out a dealer that had two used ones. Both had moonroofs.
Some times, you just miss the boat.
I would agree that the revisions have not been improvements. The current one is too swoopy, like they’re trying to force you into a crossover if you ever plan to use it for anything.
The headroom is excellent for a tall driver, but it does elicit a whining sound from the back seat.
I would agree that the revisions have not been improvements.
Unlike some others, Mazda hasn’t improved rust resistance either. Saw a 04-06 Mazda3 wagon today: rear wheel arches rusted through.
Does Mazda USA label those as wagons? With a straight face? They are regarded as hatchbacks in most of their other markets…
That’s because they ARE hatchbacks. The white Mazda 3 above is a 5-door hatchback, it’s not even close to a (C-segment) wagon.
Look at the difference between a VW Golf 5-door hatch and the VW Golf Variant, for example.
Nope. Not by a long shot. Not to my eye. From it’s self important grill, to it’s big butt and the cliched little grills in the front fenders, it’s wrong. Even the Chevy Aveo has little grills in the front fenders.
Here’s another vote for Audi. Specifically the A4. Was instantly struck by it’s looks when I saw it at the Detroit show. Ran up to it. Looked at the price sticker. After recovering from the faint and picking myself off the floor, I mosied back to the VeeDub stand.
Hard to tell if the author is a GM/Cadillac fanboi.
I could just never warm up to the D-pillar on these. It presents very weird angles in relation to the side windows when viewed from certain directions. Thick, chunky, ungainly, and not at all graceful.
The rear, however, looks great. Just not the side and rear 3/4 view.
I find this one to be a real contender, albeit an overlooked one
Your BMW 5 series example is a generation behind. The current 5 series Touring came to market in 2010, just like the CTS wagon, and is vastly more stylish:
I considered a 3 series wagon, for a moment. Dealers around here had none on hand as I recall. BMW didn’t even have one on their stand at the show last year. I like the styling well enough, until I get around to the front…..*ouch*
There are a few problems with the design of this car. The biggest is the C Pillar: Unlike the Europeans, Cadillac didn’t spend the money to tool up a proper wagon-approriate rear door upper/C pillar. They cheaped out and used the sedan’s, which of course slopes forward too far. That pretty much forced them to do something dramatic with the D Pillar in order to cover up that mistake. But it doesn’t really work well. It’s all to obviously a compromise, because Cadillac wasn’t really committed to a proper wagon design. It’s a sedan, with a grafted on rear section.
The CTS gen2 front end has always bothered me; it’s way to “big” in relation to the rest of the car. It’s like Cadillac was trying too hard to make sure you knew this had a heritage Cadillac front end. I know this has been the general trend, although one that is now (thankfully) receding again.
But I get that this car has a certain visceral appeal.
Yep, although this must be one of the best-looking sedan-door-using-wagons ever designed. Few pulled it off this well without making a compromise on either sedan or wagon, and even fewer so without making it immediately obvious the doors are identical (I didn’t notice it until you pointed it out).
The first generation SRX also used the sedan C pillar which did not look quite right. With the CTS wagon, Cadillac probably did not expect sales to be all that good, but were hopeful that it might sell in Europe. Sales of the CTS wagon were not good. I was interested in replacing my SRX with a CTS wagon, but that did not work out when I did not find one that I wanted and I came to realize that it was a generation behind for electronics anyway.
If I weren’t already driving my second new Caddy SRX, I’d search out one of these immediately. I think they are gorgeous. Tastes evolve and, although I’m 62, I’d like to believe mine have evolved, also.
Wrong-o! It’s obviously the Ambassador hardtop wagon. Vent windows in the front AND back!
Its on up there, Id say that. Im no fan of Caddys for the most part, but this wagon and the CTS/ATS coupes definitely got my attention in a way that Cadillacs of the past never would have.
No surprise here but Im in love with the Magnum. I like wagon utility for sure, but the Magnum was the first car since the Nomad to actually position itself as something ‘cool’. Single childless people like myself flocked to it also, which really says something. Ive been keeping an eye peeled for a clean low mileage R/T in the right color and without the roofrack and touch screen as of late….
I wanted to like the CTS wagon. But damn, that fat D pillar.
Like it, would be happy to own it, but I would still want my 2005 Legacy GT wagon. 250+HP, AWD, sportshift, buttery leather, and space for the gear of life.
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.