Motor Trend 2009 ctsv plus est price

lkeymo · #1 (**permalink**) 01-18-08, 06:21 PM

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...cadillac_cts_v

Jpjr · #2 (**permalink**) 01-18-08, 11:08 PM

best thread yet. great pics and commentary

benh · #3 (**permalink**) 01-18-08, 11:55 PM

agree and note indication of options...performance pack and ricardo seats

Dave's V · #4 (**permalink**) 01-19-08, 12:35 AM

Nice article! I think the base price is without the GGT which is probably around $2k. Recaros probably add another $2-4k, auto another $1.5k. I would say close to $70k for a fully-loaded V. I don't know if having a $18k price jump in a bad market is a good idea.

tx_metabaron · #5 (**permalink**) 01-19-08, 12:51 AM

I think I just can't wait for the V-Coupe

BowenCT · #6 (**permalink**) 01-19-08, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave's V

Nice article! I think the base price is without the GGT which is probably around $2k. Recaros probably add another $2-4k, auto another $1.5k. I would say close to $70k for a fully-loaded V.

Agreed, amazing article. I'll take mine with the manual tranny, but the Recaros are a must. With options, plus another $4k in taxes, this thing is going to hit $70k for me easy. Which completely sux because I need a new boat badly and a $70k car ain't gonna be in the cards. I am going to have serious issues once these things hit showroom floors....haha.

WishfulThinking · #7 (**permalink**) 01-19-08, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benh

...performance pack and ricardo seats

I hear the McGillicutty seats look pretty good, but don't perform very well.

(j/k. couldn't resist.)

GNSCOTT · #8 (**permalink**) 01-19-08, 08:12 PM

Having an auto tranny will more than make up for the $10-$15k price increase. Older people can afford this car, and they do not want sticks. just look at the number of Corvettes sold as autos.

cbloveday · #9 (**permalink**) 01-19-08, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BowenCT

Agreed, amazing article. I'll take mine with the manual tranny, but the Recaros are a must. With options, plus another $4k in taxes, this thing is going to hit $70k for me easy. Which completely sux because I need a new boat badly and a $70k car ain't gonna be in the cards. I am going to have serious issues once these things hit showroom floors....haha.

I got this one for sale.

Price is negotiable

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...currencyid=100

BowenCT · #10 (**permalink**) 01-20-08, 03:00 AM

Nice boat, but no thanks. I won't be pulling the trigger until probably (hopefully) spring '09. I don't boat anywhere for a cruiser that big. Most likely going to pick up a Spectre, Motion, or AMT 30 cat with twin Mercs. Perfect for my inland lake, and easy enough to trailer to Poker Runs.

cbloveday · #11 (**permalink**) 01-20-08, 11:01 AM

I understand. Good luck with the search and be safe this boating season.

BowenCT · #12 (**permalink**) 01-20-08, 12:48 PM

You as well. Good luck with the sale. (Then go plunk down a deposit on an '09 V!)

Katshot · #13 (**permalink**) 01-21-08, 10:22 AM

Good article. First one I've seen that mention the dry/wet sump difference between the two engines. I DO have one issue from the article. They mentioned that the Gen 2 CTS was engineered from the start taking into account the needs of the 'V'. For this reason, they claim the car may pay a little in weight across the whole model line but that it would then make the 'V' less of a big-boned beast comparatively. This is similar to what Ford did with the current gen. Mustang.
The problem I have is that if you compare the Gen 1 base a 'V' cars to the Gen 2 base and 'V' cars it appears that they are talking out their collective butts since the Gen 2 'V' is approx. 100lbs. heavier in comparison to the base car than the Gen 1 was. If they were correct, the Gen 2 'V' would be closer in weight to the base car than it actually is.
So I gotta wonder what's going n here?

P-Funk · #14 (**permalink**) 01-21-08, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katshot

Good article. First one I've seen that mention the dry/wet sump difference between the two engines. I DO have one issue from the article. They mentioned that the Gen 2 CTS was engineered from the start taking into account the needs of the 'V'. For this reason, they claim the car may pay a little in weight across the whole model line but that it would then make the 'V' less of a big-boned beast comparatively. This is similar to what Ford did with the current gen. Mustang.
The problem I have is that if you compare the Gen 1 base a 'V' cars to the Gen 2 base and 'V' cars it appears that they are talking out their collective butts since the Gen 2 'V' is approx. 100lbs. heavier in comparison to the base car than the Gen 1 was. If they were correct, the Gen 2 'V' would be closer in weight to the base car than it actually is.
So I gotta wonder what's going n here?

Maybe it's the supercharger.

HiTechRV · #15 (**permalink**) 01-21-08, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katshot

Good article. First one I've seen that mention the dry/wet sump difference between the two engines. I DO have one issue from the article. They mentioned that the Gen 2 CTS was engineered from the start taking into account the needs of the 'V'. For this reason, they claim the car may pay a little in weight across the whole model line but that it would then make the 'V' less of a big-boned beast comparatively. This is similar to what Ford did with the current gen. Mustang.
The problem I have is that if you compare the Gen 1 base a 'V' cars to the Gen 2 base and 'V' cars it appears that they are talking out their collective butts since the Gen 2 'V' is approx. 100lbs. heavier in comparison to the base car than the Gen 1 was. If they were correct, the Gen 2 'V' would be closer in weight to the base car than it actually is.
So I gotta wonder what's going n here?

Did they say less big boned, or just fewer heavy chassis mods required? Tires weigh more (^%&*%^ runflats are HEAVY), supercharger, probably springs and dampers...etc.