Year and Model | % of Average Repair Frequency | |
2008 - 2013 Cadillac CTS |
Best
159%
Worst
|
See problems for this generation Share on Facebook |
Cadillac CTS Reliability And Durability: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2004 | 4dr Sedan 255-horsepower 3.6L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
Better than the germans. full 2004 Cadillac CTS review |
2004 | 4dr Sedan 255-horsepower 3.6L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
Needed very little in the first 40k other then just oil and filters. full 2004 Cadillac CTS review |
2003 | 4dr Sedan 220-horsepower 3.2L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
This car has been very reliable. I have never had any problems with it - none at all. It is still even on its original brake pads and rotors! Cadillac builds quality and reliability. full 2003 Cadillac CTS review |
Cadillac CTS Reliability And Durability: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2006 | 4dr Sedan 255-horsepower 3.6L V6 5-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
Replaced water pump, rt front strut and upper strut mount at 24,000 miles. Car always idled rough. full 2006 Cadillac CTS review |
2004 | 4dr Sedan 400-horsepower 5.7L V8 6-speed manual RWD |
Rear end failures started popping up early on this model. I knew it when I bought it, so I nver do hard launches off the line. You are a begging for a blown rear end if you do. FACT: GM knowingly under-engineered the materials for the torque output. full 2004 Cadillac CTS review |
2003 | 4dr Sedan 220-horsepower 3.2L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
Look up any CTS owner sites and you will see a large amount of problems for every uear of this car.The name Cadillac does not indicate aquality car today. full 2003 Cadillac CTS review |
Cadillac CTS Reliability And Durability: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2004 | 4dr Sedan 255-horsepower 3.6L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
Better than the germans. full 2004 Cadillac CTS review |
2004 | 4dr Sedan 255-horsepower 3.6L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
Needed very little in the first 40k other then just oil and filters. full 2004 Cadillac CTS review |
2003 | 4dr Sedan 220-horsepower 3.2L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
This car has been very reliable. I have never had any problems with it - none at all. It is still even on its original brake pads and rotors! Cadillac builds quality and reliability. full 2003 Cadillac CTS review |
Cadillac CTS Reliability And Durability: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2006 | 4dr Sedan 255-horsepower 3.6L V6 5-speed shiftable automatic RWD |
Replaced water pump, rt front strut and upper strut mount at 24,000 miles. Car always idled rough. full 2006 Cadillac CTS review |
2004 | 4dr Sedan 400-horsepower 5.7L V8 6-speed manual RWD |
Rear end failures started popping up early on this model. I knew it when I bought it, so I nver do hard launches off the line. You are a begging for a blown rear end if you do. FACT: GM knowingly under-engineered the materials for the torque output. full 2004 Cadillac CTS review |
2003 | 4dr Sedan 220-horsepower 3.2L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
Look up any CTS owner sites and you will see a large amount of problems for every uear of this car.The name Cadillac does not indicate aquality car today. full 2003 Cadillac CTS review |