• Jan 24, 2010
Cadillac shoppers wanting the CTS Sport Wagon basically expect a little bit more car for a little bit more money than a CTS. But when they got to the showroom and saw the bigger SRX crossover cost $6,000 less, the Sport Wagon fell off the charts. So Cadillac has dropped the price of the Sport Wagon by about $1,300 in a bid to give the CTS hauler more of a chance on the sales floor.

Now the CTS Sport Wagon starts at $38,265, while the SRX is $33,330. Before the price drop, the wagon was above the $40K mark, which added that psychological barrier to the sheer dollar amount. Load up either an SRX or a CTS wagon and you'll end up around $50K.

Now, is that initial $5,000 difference still too big, or is it close enough now to keep people's eyes on the Sport Wagon prize. Car shoppers have embraced crossovers in general. As such, even with the price changes, the SRX probably doesn't need to sweat having sales poached by the CTS Sport Wagon. The former has mainstream appeal, and the latter remains a niche product.

[Source: USA Today]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 48 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      This was the picture that got me thinking I liked the CTS Sportwagon:
      http://www.stoth.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/3e321_ctssportwagon---02_opt-1253297498.jpg
      • 4 Years Ago
      CTS Wagon should be the same price as the regular CTS with same features.
      Of course the car wont sell when there aren't too many options to choose from because everything is standard, which makes the car more expensive.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The price for extra body and interior parts will drive up the cost a little, so the $3,100 price increase isn't totally uncalled for, but I would think more like $2,000 should figure a bit better.

        Either way I love this wagon and doubt it will be that successful in the American market, much less the other North American markets. Americans still haven't gone back to wagons, even hot ones like this.

        The SRX, a good but inferior vehicle in my opinion, will handily outsell this wagon year after year, assuming the CTS SW even remains alive here for more than a few years. I hope it does.
        • 4 Years Ago
        It has nothing to do with how much the CTS costs to produce. It costs what it costs because GM figures people will pay that much. If they don't the price will go down, ff they do the price will go up.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Just this past weekend, I saw my first SRX in the wild, NYC. That is a really nice vehicle. Much nicer than the RX300. This will poach sales from everyone in this category. Will be especially popular with women.

        December 2009 Sales numbers.

        CTS ---------4,180 (entire model range)
        SRX ---------4,986

        Cadillac sold more SRXs than BMW Sold X3s, X5s and X6s combined.

        http://www.bmwblog.com/2010/01/06/bmwusa-sales-up-9-in-december-2009/
        • 4 Years Ago
        The CTS uses GM's Sigma II architecture. The old body style SRX used this as well - this is why they were so close in price, with the SRX being slightly more expensive. Sigma II is GM's most expensive platform to produce.

        The new SRX uses Theta-Premium architecure, which was developed specifically for the SRX and (defunct) Saab 9-4x. The Theta Premium was designed specifically to be cheaper to build, so that the SRX would be able to be introduced at a lower price point.

        Things like orifice-based dampening control, as opposed to magnetic ride control, and a host of other slightly-less-sporty choices were made to cut costs, and give the SRX less of a "sports car" ride, and more of a "crossover" ride.

        In short: you're all wrong and the CTS is more expensive because of the platform.
        • 4 Years Ago
        So much for offering cars the public doesn't want. ;)
        • 4 Years Ago
        How do you figure that? In the regular sedan, you have a trunk area, which is not nearly as expensive to build as an area that's "inside" the passenger cabin area. The wagon would have to be more expensive, I'd think.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Subaru and many other car makers sold wagons at the same price as sedans for years.
        Cadillac is pricing this thing out of the market.

        BWT, When the first CTS came out, wasn't it priced cheaper than the G35 and IS300, but now it seems to be a bit more expensive and competes directly with the 3 series
        • 4 Years Ago
        While I find the CTS wagon attractive, I can't see ever picking it over the SRX when the two are the same price. GIve me $5,000+ to take an SRX over a CTS wagon? Yes, please!
        invisiblepigeon3
        • 4 Years Ago
        Another inaccurate and pointless comment from paul34.

        Why is it that wagons always cost more than the sedan? There's extra reinforcing that has to go into the car's frame and also in the suspension, on wagons. A trunk is comparitively simple to the "space inside" that you refer to, which requires a lot more engineering consideration.

        Nardvark and stacey

        It's not about marketing or about materials. It's about manufacturing costs. A wagon costs more to build, because it has to have extra frame pillars for torsional rigidity and safety in the back.

        I'd take the wagon over the crossover any day.
        • 4 Years Ago
        By that logic, if the wagon is more expensive than the sedan, the SRX must cost more than both, but in fact the opposite is true.

        My guess is that it comes down to what GM wants to sell. If the Cross-over is not considered a "passenger car", but instead a "light truck", it is way more profitable to sell because there are fewer regulating requirements on light trucks (bumpers, safety, emissions and fuel economy). This costs less to develop, thus, they can sell them for a comparable price with a higher margin. In this case (CTS vs SRX), the sheet metal costs don't enter the equation.

        Between the CTS sedan and wagon, the price premium represents the cost of the wagon specific tooling and the assumption that they won't sell as many wagons to offset that cost.

        • 4 Years Ago
        But for decades, the D3 offered many cars in the 2-dr coupe, 4-dr sedan, and 5-door wagon version all within a few hundred bucks of each other. Escorts, Aspens, Citations, etc. J3 did with the Camry, Maxima, and Civic/Accord through-out the 70's 80's and into the 90's (basically back before wagons were replaced by CUV/SUVs).

        The SRX on a cheaper-to-build platform? Or is it smaller? I don't understand the huge price gap.
      • 4 Years Ago
      so when is CTS-V wagon coming?
        • 4 Years Ago
        A CTS-V wagon doesn't make alot of sense. The only people I see in this are soccer mom's who need that extra space. I don't think you'll get many midnight racers willing to pay $70,000+ for a wagon. Hopefully we'll have the option, but, it should be limited order.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I think you're right about the $70,000+ wagon, nicholi.

        Good thing the V isn't 70 grand!
        • 4 Years Ago
        Makes as much sense as an Audi RS4 wagon... Which is just AWESOME.
        • 4 Years Ago
        When is "done"?
      • 4 Years Ago
      I may be wrong but my impression is that Americans prefer quantity over quality so the truck
      (never got used to 'suv') will likely always outsell the wagon for as long as it remains a cheaper vehicle for hauling all that stuff made in China?
      • 4 Years Ago
      Well, to be fair, we must say that a A4 avant (when it was available with a v6) cost more than a Q5, just like a C350 awd cost more than a GLK, and so on. GM follow the pack here. As for why crossover cost less than their car sibling (using the same platfom/engines), that as to be a long list (sales number, trend, regulations (truck vs car), etc.)
      • 4 Years Ago
      I honestly can't imagine anyone taking the SRX over a CTS Wagon for $5k price difference. The SRX platform is so much better than the SRX's (essentially a modified Epsilon II platform) that you'd have to be nuts. The CTS (should be CTT) is a full on sports sedan with more cargo room. The SRX is a minivan. Seriously.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Make it $1-2k more than the sedan, that's all it should be. Even so, I'd still buy one easily over the SRX on looks and handling alone.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Well, if it's any indication new SRXs are showing up on the streets here. I haven't seen one CTS Sportwagon on the road yet though dealers have them.

      It's a shame too. It's the best looking CTS model IMO. I test drove one and loved it, but it does have a little sticker shock when loaded with features (not all of which I would go for like the glass roof or popup nav).

      The SRX is okay, but ugly IMO and not as rich inside as the CTS. But, Americans love their SUV-like things so the Sportwagon will probably remain on the wayside.

      If it bombs and you like it look for GM to slap it with incentives and start giving them away.
        invisiblepigeon3
        • 4 Years Ago
        That's exactly how I got my IS300 Sportcross 6,000 dollars off MSRP. Lexus wasn't selling them, even though they're ten times better than an RX, and every bit as good as the IS300 sedan was.

        I think this is one of the most attractive Cadillacs ever. I'd be pretty pissed if I'd bought one before the price drop though.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Yeeow, there goes my resale. Sucks.

      Anyway, when I was looking at the vehicle, I asked the salesmen why the CTS wagon was so much more expensive than the SRX, the answers were not terribly convincing.

      I guess I wasn't the only one to wonder.

      Well, good on those who get this deal, I know I'd love to have gotten it.

      And for those who wonder, I checked, the price drop appears to carry all the way to the top of the line, they didn't jigger the options packages to claw the money back.

      I presume the price bump was to keep people from buying the wagon, because for every wagon GM sells, they get hurt on CAFE, while for each SRX they sell it helps them (since the SRX is a truck). The only way to keep from getting behind the 8 ball on this is to raise the price of the wagon or to discontinue it.

      Anyway, I'm really glad I got the wagon over the sedan.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Someone will always get a better deal. Especially someone who bought a car after you. No use worrying about it. You got to enjoy the car in the meantime.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Lower it some more and I'll be looking at getting one!
        • 4 Years Ago
        you can do that youself. Pretty easy IMO
      • 4 Years Ago
      I find it pretty stupid that they don't offer a V8 in the CTS, the 400HP 6.2L would do.
      • 4 Years Ago
      how stupid the people are! they still think a bigger vehicle get their money worth. no wonder GM can fool them again and again.
        • 4 Years Ago
        But in this case they're actually right. If GM is pricing the wagon thousands more than the SRX, for similar utility (but degraded handling on the SRX), they really are getting more car for the money. The question is why GM is making it this way, and I think the poster above who mentioned the advantage of light trucks for CAFE laws is on the right track.
        • 4 Years Ago
        nardvark,
        Remember the SRX is only a Saturn VUE under its skin. The wagon is still a CTS.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The SRX is not a Vue under its skin. The chassis and powertrains are both different than what the Vue had.
    • Load More Comments