I have not experienced any problems in the first 2,000 miles I put on the car.
I was attracted to this car by the styling and it's competitive challenge and comparison to BMW. BUT I am always skeptical of GM quality standards and materials used that make their cars less appealing and reliable.
Sub-standard:
All the cheesy plastic in the interior and lack of real wood treatment. The
middle instrument cluster looks like a Mazda. Characteristically, the no-options automatic transmission whines.
The car feels strained and picks up engine vibration past 90 mph. Car has lots of tire noise on concrete and isn't insulated well. On the ouside more rubbery plastic that flexes when you wash your car.
The CTS is not that good sad to say. Non supportive seats, harsh ride and not really that fast. I think the mid 90 cadillacs had it down right: a perfect mix of that cadillac appeal, and fast engines, plus a SMOOTH ride.
To whomever said that the CTS sucks and that Cadillac should be making their cars the old-fashioned way: I was very impressed with my friend's new CTS, and I am a BMW owner. From a styling standpoint, the CTS outscores the BMW and I happen to like the materials used inside the CTS. I thought that the interior was a nice direction for American cars because it was actually distinctive. Another friend of mine had a '91 Deville and although I felt it was solid, it had a lot of ticky-tacky details such as fake chrome that would rub right off of the dash and wood trim that I knew was FAKE. I think the CTS is just one example of what Cadillac should be producing because Cadillac is now seen as "hip" to us college students who will be in the market one day. Cadillac would have tanked if they had continued to build such iron sleds as the '91 Deville.