Anyone 100% buying the day they arrive?

[V-Love]

Originally Posted by Katshot

IMO (please notice I said that), I really liked the "looks" of the Gen. 1 STS better than the CTS. Unfortunately, the STS-V ended up with a super-charged, revised version of the Northstar (not good IMO). Honestly, that put me in a VERY hard place when trying to pick one over the other. Deciding factor was driven home when I saw the MSRP of the STS-V
Nice car but the price invoked instant MEGA-sticker-shock. Damn shame.
Now comes the new CTS. Hmmm...really liked it as soon as I saw it. Then comes the '09 CTS-V. My reaction? WOW!!!!! SUPER WOW!!!!!!!
But....then I start thinking about the price, the power, the insurance.....Hmmm.
Then, I see the review of the CTS w/DI V6 engine. My brain starts wondering wehther the "V" is really worth my time. Yeah it's more powerful but.....with RWD the power is mostly kept away from me due to lack of traction (damn computer). But realistically, even if I defeat the T/C the power is unusable. So do I really want/need it? Is the standard CTS w/DI engine a better idea? Hmmm
Just not sure.

I read it twice just to be sure. You should follow your gut and get the V-6. Then, you can argue everything in the CTS forum. If your thinking about insurance costs, well, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha cough, cough, ha, yeahh. This is gonna be too big and bad. Gas is gonna be expensive too.
I am now 86% comitted to first day ownership.

[Katshot]

Originally Posted by Rich H

I would say that the 2" gain in overall width contributed a significant amount to the weight gain. If the associated increase in track width helps the handling and skidpad cornering, as it apparently has on the base 2008 CTS, I'm all for it. If not, I can do without the increased width AND weight. The wider, lower profile tires on the new V should help as much as the track width at a much lower weight penalty.

Not so sure about that. Look at the weights of the base car verses the V. This is why I said the DI car might actually be a better choice. It benefits from the wider track and at the same time doesn't have to pay as much of a penalty from increased weight. I wouldn't be surprised to see magazines pointing out things like, "...although the V is certainly higher powered, it takes more effort to drive fast, and "feels" slower in some ways due to it's increased weight..."
Bottom line, the DI car might feel "lighter on it's feet" even though it's performance is ultimately down a notch overall.

[b4z]

thebigjimsho,

My apology. I read thru all 8 pages quickly then responded to what I thought(or assumed) you posted. My internet reading comprehension is not what it used to be.

[v84life]

Originally Posted by Katshot

Not so sure about that. Look at the weights of the base car verses the V. This is why I said the DI car might actually be a better choice. It benefits from the wider track and at the same time doesn't have to pay as much of a penalty from increased weight. I wouldn't be surprised to see magazines pointing out things like, "...although the V is certainly higher powered, it takes more effort to drive fast, and "feels" slower in some ways due to it's increased weight..."
Bottom line, the DI car might feel "lighter on it's feet" even though it's performance is ultimately down a notch overall.

The DI V6 is a fine car but down a notch overall thats Try about 3-4 notches. The new CTS line is a world class car no doubt but the 09V will be a world class beater. New territory for a American sedan... Can't wait

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by Katshot

Not so sure about that. Look at the weights of the base car verses the V. This is why I said the DI car might actually be a better choice. It benefits from the wider track and at the same time doesn't have to pay as much of a penalty from increased weight. I wouldn't be surprised to see magazines pointing out things like, "...although the V is certainly higher powered, it takes more effort to drive fast, and "feels" slower in some ways due to it's increased weight..."
Bottom line, the DI car might feel "lighter on it's feet" even though it's performance is ultimately down a notch overall.

I followed an 08 CTS today for a few miles - by choice, of course. I must say that from the rear the proportions look good. An aggressive wide stance coupled with what seems to be moderately flared wheel wells makes it look a lot more like a cornering machine than the gen 1 CTS so I don't doubt the skid pad test numbers reported in another thread. I'm sure the V will do even better at the skid pad - but, I agree that any mass set in motion tends to stay in the same directional motion; ie, conservation of momentum. So the real test will be the slalom course where the mass in motion is constantly required to change direction. Then we will see if the suspension, tire grip, and hp can overcome the increased mass.

[The Tony Show]

I think it's already been agreed upon that the gen 2 V is not going to be an autocross machine. Besides, who the hell cares about a slalom test? I don't plan on driving serpentine between the stripes in the road on my way home- I'm interested in the steady state cornering, initial turn in response and how much speed I can carry through a corner (aka lateral grip). Unless your daily commute involves a windy road with each corner spaced 10 feet apart, a slalom test doesn't mean squat.

A multi cone slalom is yet another example of a driving situation that will NEVER occur in the real world, and is a useless magazine number used by Internet racers. BigJim has passed a ton of cars at Gingerman and VIR that are "supposedly" better handlers than the Gen 1 V- I've seen the pictures and heard the tales.

Good handling is a lot more than doing well in some contrived tests in a magazine that have very little reflection on how a car performs in the real world.

[thebigjimsho]

Originally Posted by b4z

thebigjimsho,

My apology. I read thru all 8 pages quickly then responded to what I thought(or assumed) you posted. My internet reading comprehension is not what it used to be.

No prob, my man. Sometimes we agree to disagree even when we agree...

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by The Tony Show

I think it's already been agreed upon that the gen 2 V is not going to be an autocross machine. Besides, who the hell cares about a slalom test? I don't plan on driving serpentine between the stripes in the road on my way home- I'm interested in the steady state cornering, initial turn in response and how much speed I can carry through a corner (aka lateral grip). Unless your daily commute involves a windy road with each corner spaced 10 feet apart, a slalom test doesn't mean squat.

A multi cone slalom is yet another example of a driving situation that will NEVER occur in the real world, and is a useless magazine number used by Internet racers. BigJim has passed a ton of cars at Gingerman and VIR that are "supposedly" better handlers than the Gen 1 V- I've seen the pictures and heard the tales.

Good handling is a lot more than doing well in some contrived tests in a magazine that have very little reflection on how a car performs in the real world.

Hell it occurs every day when I have to weave around traffic on the interstate at 70+ mph. Don't be too quick to judge the demands of your customers - your are a purported dealer I take it.

[The Tony Show]

A "purported" Dealer?

No, that's just my personal opinion as a V owner. Even weaving through traffic, off center steering response and initial turn in is more more important than slalom speed (unless the cars you're weaving between are parked).

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by The Tony Show

A "purported" Dealer?

No, that's just my personal opinion as a V owner. Even weaving through traffic, off center steering response and initial turn in is more more important than slalom speed (unless the cars you're weaving between are parked).

Evidently I have you confused with the other "Tony" that frequently posts here.

By the way, I have come across a few "parked cars" on the shoulders of blind curves on mountain roads where a quick maneuver was required for accident avoidance - both to avoid the vehicle and to turn back into the lane to avoid oncoming traffic. Whether you consider that slalom or not is purely subjective.

Seriously, let's face it - how much do the car magazine tests relate to real life driving for any situation? Do we drive in circles or figure eights? Maybe the full out 1/4 mile test can test how quickly we can merge into traffic if the rest of the traffic is doing 110+ MPH - but unlikely.

[The Tony Show]

You're not confused, it just wasn't my opinion as a Dealer or about customers- it was my personal feelings on the issue at hand.

I agree that the magazine tests aren't representative of real world driving, but you have to admit that 0-60 acceleration, braking and skidpad type driving comes into play in the real world a lot more frequently than a slalom.

[atdeneve]

A skid pad demonstrates the car's handling at its limits in a steady state. A slalom is very telling of how a vehicle handles dynamically. On the street, very rarely are you gonna be in a constant steady state turn. Never mind, at the limits of adhesion in a steady state turn. On a track, yes. On the street, not as likely. It is much more likely that you will test a vehicle's transitioning behavior - and often at its limits - such as in an erratic lane change maneuver, as mentioned above. On top of that, most drivers tend to be erratic. Smooth, not so much.

But yeah, overall, each of the tests are but a piecemeal view of the car's performance as a whole. Nevertheless, it gives us some insight into the vehicle's capabilities, short of plopping our asses into the seat and taking it for a real drive.

[P-Funk]

Originally Posted by atdeneve

On the street, very rarely are you gonna be in a constant steady state turn. Never mind, at the limits of adhesion in a steady state turn. On a track, yes. On the street, not as likely. It is much more likely that you will test a vehicle's transitioning behavior - and often at its limits - such as in an erratic lane change maneuver, as mentioned above. On top of that, most drivers tend to be erratic. Smooth, not so much.

Sorry, but have to disagree here. I'd say MOST of the time is "steady state turn". Think of all the turns you do onto cross streets. Those are steady state turns. Very seldom do I do an erratic lane change type maneuver (can't think of the last time I've had to do it).

[thebigjimsho]

Originally Posted by P-Funk

Sorry, but have to disagree here. I'd say MOST of the time is "steady state turn". Think of all the turns you do onto cross streets. Those are steady state turns. Very seldom do I do an erratic lane change type maneuver (can't think of the last time I've had to do it).

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Since when do you reach the limit of adhesion turning onto cross streets? There may be a FEW ramps that aren't decreasing or increasing radius turns where steady state stability comes into play. Much more often you need to make a quick correction to avoid a pothole, obstacle or another car. Even on a track, you need to modulate throttle and brake, so steady state even then doesn't come into play that often.

Because there is no real standard gauge to reflect real world events, you go with these numbers in the hopes of translating to the streets...

[atdeneve]

Originally Posted by P-Funk

Sorry, but have to disagree here. I'd say MOST of the time is "steady state turn". Think of all the turns you do onto cross streets. Those are steady state turns. Very seldom do I do an erratic lane change type maneuver (can't think of the last time I've had to do it).

You're kinda misconstruing what I said. I said skid pad testing is a steady state maneuver. However, just because steady state maneuvers are the major type of street driving, that does not translate into the fact that skid pad type maneuvers are the major type of street driving. Don't get it twisted. And try out some logic exercises. They're muy fun!

Turns on cross street are nothing near the nature of skid pad type behavior. Nothing. Skid pad testing is at the very limits of vehicle adhesion. You actually have to go over it and then nudge back to get to the very limits of that type of steady state, at the limits testing. Sorry hombre, you're just not gonna be doing that kinda driving. I never said that erratic lane changes were common. It's just more common (on average; maybe not for you, cuz you're a super duper driver that never places yourself in such a situation where such manuevers would be required) than a skip pad maneuver - i.e. a constant, steady state, at-the-limits turn.

You see, the problem is that, for a skid pad type maneuver, all of those conditions - constant, steady state, at-the-limits - have to be satisifed. Very rarely will that occur on the streets. Unless, you pride yourself in your driving skills and are confident enough to demonstrate that kinda driving, without racking up enough points to lose your license.

On the other hand, due to our overall lack of skill as a driving population, we will often be met with a dicey situation where we will have to demonstrate the car's dynamic transitioning capabilities, and very often, at the limits, as an emergency situation would often demand. Hmmm. Dynamic transitions, at the limits. Those conditons would aptly satisfy a slalom, would they not? Indeed, they would.

Edit: Looks like you got 'splained to 'ready.