CTS-V review on "Motor Week"
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
2004-2007 Cadillac CTS-V General Discussion Discussion, CTS-V review on "Motor Week" in Cadillac CTS-V Series Forum - 2004 - 2007; Just this past saturday morning - I'm surprised no one has said anything about it yet... Overall the staff was ...
  1. #1
    IrateTA is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    7

    CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Just this past saturday morning - I'm surprised no one has said anything about it yet...

    Overall the staff was impressed with it, but could only pull off a 13.7 @ ~106ish mph in the 1/4 (while smoking the tires mind you ). They were pretty critical of it, saying things like its "almost there with the other like cars" and tried comparing it to the $80K+ AMG E55.

    My impression of their "impression" - IMO "Motor Week" is an awesome show for we people without cable , but I feel the editors and drivers are slightly lacking in world experience. Maybe I'm just a cadillac nut, but I feel the CTS-V should be placed a tad higher than they put it. I'll try to watch the review again and write down some major points later. Also, I'll see if I can rip a copy of it onto my computer and post it up on the internet in .mpeg format.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    CadillacForums.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    cajunairman's Avatar
    cajunairman is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, LA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    36

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    It comes on tonight on Speed at 11:30e, 10:30c. and so forth....

    I'll be watching. My car arrives in 4 days.

  4. #3
    CVP33's Avatar
    CVP33 is online now Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): '04V, '05V, '06SRT8, '10V sedan, '13ZL1 vert, '12 V coupe
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    mockingbigjimsville, NC
    Age
    48
    Posts
    5,911

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    As far as I'm concerned you can add CTS-V to the short list of GM world beaters right next to the Z06.

    The CTS-V will always be compared to the RS6, M5 and the E55. No surprise to me that $50,000 doesn't buy you an $80,000 car. As far as speed, performance and handling though the CTS-V is their equal.

    Now for a "fair" comparison look at the vehicles in the CTS-V's price range and class: GS430, M45, 540i, E500, S-TYPE R, Lincoln LSV8.

    Show me one on this list that can reach 100mph in 12 secs, or turn .90 g's through the corners, or stop from 70mph in 165 ft. These are Porsche 911 numbers for crying out loud!

    GM has done it again! Delivered a $50,000 car that spanks cars costing $75,000 to over $100,000! I'll take two please.


  5. #4
    GNSCOTT is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,061

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Its going to be great when these cars hit some serious racers and they start ripping M5 times bone stock.

  6. #5
    Ralph's Avatar
    Ralph is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): Cadillac
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    16,064

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Quote Originally Posted by IrateTA
    Just this past saturday morning - I'm surprised no one has said anything about it yet...

    Overall the staff was impressed with it, but could only pull off a 13.7 @ ~106ish mph in the 1/4 (while smoking the tires mind you ). They were pretty critical of it, saying things like its "almost there with the other like cars" and tried comparing it to the $80K+ AMG E55.

    My impression of their "impression" - IMO "Motor Week" is an awesome show for we people without cable , but I feel the editors and drivers are slightly lacking in world experience. Maybe I'm just a cadillac nut, but I feel the CTS-V should be placed a tad higher than they put it. I'll try to watch the review again and write down some major points later. Also, I'll see if I can rip a copy of it onto my computer and post it up on the internet in .mpeg format.
    Is it not obvious to them that if they smoke the tires, the ET is longer! It seems articles and reviews of this car are initially on the negative side because they have bias toward the imports. If they find ANY fault with the new car, then it is scruitinized to an extreme. I genuinely believe these reporters and writers are worried this car will give them competition that no other has in this class.(from Cadillac) If this is the mentality, then the CTS-V will, over time, prove itself to them, and import luxury lovers. But the respect will take some time to be earned. IMO.

  7. #6
    JEM
    JEM is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    655

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph
    Is it not obvious to them that if they smoke the tires, the ET is longer! It seems articles and reviews of this car are initially on the negative side because they have bias toward the imports.
    Frankly, I think you've got it backward. I think most reviewers, historically, have bent over backward to try to look favorably on 'new and improved' domestic product. Whether or not the vehicle involved deserved it.

    One need only look at, say, all the ink expended on the '78 Fairmont/Zephyr, or the '80 FWD GM X-cars, or any of half a hundred others since then, for prime examples of unwarranted praise.

    No car is perfect. If a review fails to point out obvious failings I have to wonder whether the editor of said magazine got a little too concerned about ad revenue. The C/D M-car comparison piece, for instance, is the first one I've seen that (properly) slams GM for the 1-4 skip-shift crap. And my benchmark for a complete and honest M5 review has to mention the less-than-optimum brake feel and the clunky off-idle clutch takeup.

    I haven't yet read a CTS-V review that I'd regard as negative. I don't think anyone's yet managed to match GM's claimed numbers - that's something GM needs to be concerned about, but I'd hardly suspect a conspiracy among the entire auto press.

    The curiosity of the situation is this: Detroit in general, and GM in particular, have for decades built cars that put up great magazine-test numbers but felt cheap and/or badly set up in real-world driving. For thirty years, you could find some GM product that put up better test-track numbers than various BMWs, but on real roads the GM product had too much roll stiffness and too little suspension travel and WAY too little seat support and rarely a decent manual transmission (oh, and never mind GM's lemming-like stampede to FWD) and, in the end, the Bimmer was far and away the better product.

    So now the shoe's on the other foot. GM's got a car that works spectacularly well on real roads but can't manage killer magazine-test numbers.

  8. #7
    Ralph's Avatar
    Ralph is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): Cadillac
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    16,064

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Quote Originally Posted by JEM
    Frankly, I think you've got it backward. I think most reviewers, historically, have bent over backward to try to look favorably on 'new and improved' domestic product. Whether or not the vehicle involved deserved it.

    One need only look at, say, all the ink expended on the '78 Fairmont/Zephyr, or the '80 FWD GM X-cars, or any of half a hundred others since then, for prime examples of unwarranted praise.

    No car is perfect. If a review fails to point out obvious failings I have to wonder whether the editor of said magazine got a little too concerned about ad revenue. The C/D M-car comparison piece, for instance, is the first one I've seen that (properly) slams GM for the 1-4 skip-shift crap. And my benchmark for a complete and honest M5 review has to mention the less-than-optimum brake feel and the clunky off-idle clutch takeup.

    I haven't yet read a CTS-V review that I'd regard as negative. I don't think anyone's yet managed to match GM's claimed numbers - that's something GM needs to be concerned about, but I'd hardly suspect a conspiracy among the entire auto press.

    The curiosity of the situation is this: Detroit in general, and GM in particular, have for decades built cars that put up great magazine-test numbers but felt cheap and/or badly set up in real-world driving. For thirty years, you could find some GM product that put up better test-track numbers than various BMWs, but on real roads the GM product had too much roll stiffness and too little suspension travel and WAY too little seat support and rarely a decent manual transmission (oh, and never mind GM's lemming-like stampede to FWD) and, in the end, the Bimmer was far and away the better product.

    So now the shoe's on the other foot. GM's got a car that works spectacularly well on real roads but can't manage killer magazine-test numbers.
    I don't think the reviews are praising this car enough for what it can accomplish! I want to see some numbers where it kicks BMW and Benz, and I'm sure in certain areas, it may accomplish this. I also think that it is unfortunate that the March 2004 C&D article on the car focussed on the faulty oil temp sensor (prob. made in Mexico), despite the fact that it put out good numbers with this problem. This may unfortunately reflect negative quality on the ENTIRE car IMO, and is not a valid belief. It just seems to me that when a new model comes out, the spotlight is focussed, and if there are problems or flaws with it, it does get some negative press, and that can immediately render it a "lemon." If a car is a lemon, then it deserves to be labelled a lemon. You refer to the GM X car of 1980, of which I own one. You are correct, it was labelled a lemon early on in its history, yet they still sold them for 5 more years. We have had no trouble with ours, but I've heard horror stories about brakes locking, paint peeling, camshafts siezing etc, etc. I am not defending the fact it was a lemon, that is a matter of fact. It's just too bad they couldn't perfect this car because it evolved into the Grand Am, and my coupe has styling to match. I don't think these cars were "praised" for very long. The flaws became evident. Remember the 1984 Pontiac Fiero labelled a lemon with electrical fires, etc. By 1988, it was a damn good car! The bugs were supposedly gone, and it was every bit as good as the Toyota MR2 IMO.

    Personally, I don't think one can blame FWD on GM's lackluster quality of the time. This was rushed in to meet the gasoline crisis of 1979. We have fine quality FWD vehicles today. I blame bad engineering and quality control. I don't think much of the European cars of 30, or even 20 years ago. (Personal thought) I think of them as feeble little oil burners, and if you've ever been unfortunate enough to be behind one at a green light, you'll know what I mean. I am talking of older BMW's, Volvos, etc. I still see a lot more 20 or 30 year old Detroit cars on the road than the European. Maybe it is because they were not maintained? Whatever.

    My point in all of this is, yes, at first some reviews MAY favor a newer car, BUT if flaws are found on it (like the X car) then it immediately develops a negative reputation, and that can hurt sales and eventually be the death of it. Ford Pinto could be another example. Another, the 1991 BMW 735i, where they were recalled for exploding gas tanks! (Edmunds,not really publicized widely) I wonder how many cars were lemons or had serious recalls, but not labelled as such, and are still being made without knowledge of this?

    I'm certainly not arguing with you, just my thoughts and opinion.

    I think GM's got an excellent killer car here, and with the right driver, it should put-out good numbers. Once those engines are broken-in properly, look out! I think the competition will have to "up" their numbers a little just to keep ahead.

  9. #8
    Playdrv4me's Avatar
    Playdrv4me is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): 1992 STS / 2005 MB G500 / 2003 STS / 2006 XLR-V
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    TPA / STL / ICT / SAT
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Quote Originally Posted by cvp33
    The CTS-V will always be compared to the RS6, M5 and the E55. No surprise to me that $50,000 doesn't buy you an $80,000 car. As far as speed, performance and handling though the CTS-V is their equal.
    Well without getting into this whole debate again, which seems to crop up on this side of the forum like what...every other day, I have to say that the CTS-V just downright has the stuff. Do I think it squarely competes with some of the above mentioned vehicles...well..no. But I think it comes close, and I think it also kicks the ass of some of those, (540i, E500 come to mind, but I dont know that it would be an S-Type R killer on all counts). Remember that the CTS is not the only V product that will be coming down the line, and as GM has more time to tweak the lineup and further enhance even the CTS-V, it will become a serious threat to the others. I mean thats all there really is to it, its a damn good car, for damn good money, and I think you get what you pay for, just dont expect to get loads MORE than what youre paying for...I mean, that seems like a fair way to run business.

    Now onto a sore subject, I love to watch MotorWeek TV, but come on guys, are those not the pansiest most manufacturer biased reviews you have ever seen? I personally have never seen them really dawg ANY car, and they always have little pansy words of praise for everything. Like I said, dont get me wrong I love the show just because I think the host (John Davis) is pretty good, and I like to see anything that puts the newest cars up in my face and really being driven, but the reviews are poop compared to Motor Trend or CandD reviews.
    A great alternative to MotorWeek, and ironically also shown on the SPEED network, is AUTOWEEK TV, their reviews are not loads better, but are certainly more realistic and less manufacturer biased, and come on, who couldnt love Dutch Mandel's coy sarcasm?. Theres another car review type forum show on SPEED thats pretty good but I cant exactly remember the name right now...

  10. #9
    Ralph's Avatar
    Ralph is offline Cadillac Owners 10000+ Posts
    Automobile(s): Cadillac
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    16,064

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Quote Originally Posted by CVP33
    As far as I'm concerned you can add CTS-V to the short list of GM world beaters right next to the Z06.

    The CTS-V will always be compared to the RS6, M5 and the E55. No surprise to me that $50,000 doesn't buy you an $80,000 car. As far as speed, performance and handling though the CTS-V is their equal.

    Now for a "fair" comparison look at the vehicles in the CTS-V's price range and class: GS430, M45, 540i, E500, S-TYPE R, Lincoln LSV8.

    Show me one on this list that can reach 100mph in 12 secs, or turn .90 g's through the corners, or stop from 70mph in 165 ft. These are Porsche 911 numbers for crying out loud!

    GM has done it again! Delivered a $50,000 car that spanks cars costing $75,000 to over $100,000! I'll take two please.

    Well said!!

  11. #10
    darrelld's Avatar
    darrelld is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Age
    58
    Posts
    543

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph
    Well said!!
    Ditto...

  12. #11
    lasstss's Avatar
    lasstss is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Ellicott City
    Posts
    2,873

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    I saw it also. Their launch was novice. They fried the tires on the line. Been there, done that. It was also done near freezing. We need a warm track and a somewhat soft launch. I will post the real numbers as soon as Im behind the drivers seat. Probably this weekend.

  13. #12
    JEM
    JEM is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    655

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Quote Originally Posted by CVP33
    Show me one on this list that can reach 100mph in 12 secs, or turn .90 g's through the corners, or stop from 70mph in 165 ft. These are Porsche 911 numbers for crying out loud!
    I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, but...

    It's entirely possible to build a car that puts in great numbers, but completely misses on the combination of solidity, flexibility, and eagerness that defines a real winner in this class.

    It's not the numbers that really matter, it's the tuning.

    Though numbers help!

  14. #13
    gothicaleigh's Avatar
    gothicaleigh is offline Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): Current: None Past: '94 STS, '93 Eldorado, '98 ETC, '03 CTS
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    MyWorldIsEvil, ButAmericanMade
    Posts
    6,654

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    I think my response the last time we went around about this still stands:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicaleigh
    Honestly, who didn't see this coming? They admit it themselves that the car wasn't pushed to it's limits like the other two.

    "To limit oil-temp-readout hysterics, we tried short-shifting the Caddy at 5500 rpm, well below the 6000 rpm horsepower peak, figuring the 5.7's edge in torque would cover for not using all the revs."

    But read on and the results aren't as bad as you would think:
    Lap times:

    "So even though we weren't able to employ nearly as much throttle as we would have liked, and nearly as often, the Cadillac's best lap - 1:25.355 (74.7mph) - edged the M5's by 0.138. And there's no doubt in the mind of the designated lapper that there was another second or so that we were unable to exploit. Perhaps even more."
    The M3 posted a best of 1:24.471 (75.4mph). Sounds like the CTS-V should have come out on top here.

    Other interesting comments of note:

    "...the CTS-V had a distinctly better pedal feel than the M5."
    Braking numbers: M3-161ft. M5-164ft. CTS-V-165ft.

    "In terms of general comfort and and self-indulgence, the CTS-V is the clear winner. It's roomier than the M5, particularly in the rear, the electroluminescent instruments look good and scan better, the interior styling looks more contemporary than the aging BMW layouts, and the Caddy's audio system makes the BMW units sound very ordinary indeed."

    "We were also a bit mystified by the skidpad results. The Caddy's 245/45ZR-18 tires provided a bit less rear footprint than either of the BMW's, although it put up the best skidpad number, 0.90g [also stated is that the leaking tire may have diluted this result, so it could be even higher!]."

    Surprisingly, other than the first section of the article where they complain about the problems their pre-production car had, it says a lot in the CTS-V's favor. Whoever believes that this was a poor article isn't reading what is actually being said. C&D had a seriously flawed car and it still managed to turn times on par with the best BMW has to offer. Imagine how well a properly driven full production model will do.

    Standard Of The World.
    It bests the M cars in handling and feel and comes dangerously close to outperforming them even with the problems and shortshifting. As everyone else pointed out, Autoweek seems to report the same thing. So far the only thing hurting it is the competency of the drivers.

    Already I see how GM is going to improve the V for round two in '05. Add some wider/better rubber on the rear to minimize the slip. That way the driver error is eliminated. Maybe a SCCA race car treatment... <drools>

  15. #14
    CVP33's Avatar
    CVP33 is online now Cadillac Owners Master
    Automobile(s): '04V, '05V, '06SRT8, '10V sedan, '13ZL1 vert, '12 V coupe
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    mockingbigjimsville, NC
    Age
    48
    Posts
    5,911

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    JEM,

    The magazine tests show the CTS-V to be a capable performer. C&D with their self imposed short shifting "limped" around Putnam Park and still bested the M5. Why the M3 was used is beyond me. A two door compact vs. a mid-sized 4 door? Pahleeeeeease. But even C&D admitted that the CTS-V if pushed properly would beat both cars around the track. That's good enough for me.

    As far as equalling the 0-60 times, I just don't see it happening. R&T got there in 5 secs flat but the IRS is a bitch to launch properly. Then again, I don't expect many V's will make their way to the 1/4 mile track. I was however surprised with R&T's 1/4 speed, 13.4 secs @ 109 mph. That is some serious top end. Additionally their 0-100 was just north of 11.4 secs. Incredible. I'm struggling to see a downside to this car.

  16. #15
    JEM
    JEM is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    655

    Re: CTS-V review on "Motor Week"

    Quote Originally Posted by gothicaleigh
    So far the only thing hurting it is the competency of the drivers.
    ...said magazine scribblers being on average a good bit bet better than those buying the cars.

    Further, they need not be so concerned about breaking the car as someone flogging their own car would be. If they bust one - whether BMW or GM - it goes back to the manufacturer on a trailer with a little "Oh, so sorry, can you please ship us a better one next time?" note.

    Already I see how GM is going to improve the V for round two in '05. Add some wider/better rubber on the rear to minimize the slip. That way the driver error is eliminated. Maybe a SCCA race car treatment... <drools>
    How does wider rear rubber eliminate driver error? It'll make wheel hop worse, numb the transient response, and if done without retuning the suspension and adding more rear anti-roll bar it'll produce a good bit more at-the-limit understeer.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting