Stick or Paddles...

[anim8orCTSV]

So I got off the phone with Cadillac and they tell me that they are now taking orders for the 09 CTS-V (at least from the dealers).

I was wondering how would you decide on getting the manual vs. the automatic transmission.

I know that I want the Manual but I was just curious how you would decide.

It seems, to me, that previous owners (the majority of them any way) would want the manual. I would guess that new buyers would be more open to the Automatic.

-Paul

[jasaero]

Well the latest news that even with a good driver the Auto might actually be quicker even when you let the computer shift for you has me kinda scratching my head. My wife can't drive stick either so that kinda hurts the manual also. I love driving my current V though so it's kinda perplexing. I would probably end up going with the manual more just for the fun of the daily drive in a manual. It does make the daily commute more involved if that is what you use your V for. To some that is bad, but I tend to not have a traffic jam commute so it helps more than it hurts. Watching John KILL the ring in an auto with such ease makes one wonder though!! I'll wait till mags compare the two setups probably.

I think such a choice is pretty rare in this category. You usually get one or the other at this level due to limited parts bin choices because of the power levels. They either develop or beef up one specifically for a car like this or just use the heaviest duty existing one they have and that usually ends up narrowing things to one choice. Of course the E60 M5 arrived here with the SMG only thing going on, but BMW went back to the drawing board when customers blew up on them about the lack of full on manual. They eventually had a manual M5, but I hear it's not nearly as refined in launching and other things as the SMG version because the computer NEEDS more control to keep things civil. Hopefully this isn't the case with the V2 and the manual is just as civil and refined for the most part as the Auto. Or as close as you can expect from a manual anyhow.

[StealthV]

With the rear gear ratio differences, the TR6060 manual should be a faster accelerating car, especially in the popular 3rd gear runs, with the caveat of the human being (no pun intended) able rip off good shifts between gears. As shown in the recent Heinrocket at the 'Ring video, the 6L90E automatic has the simplistic operational advantage of just put it in "D" and mash the pedal.

And when it comes to faster, they should be within a tenth of a second and a one mph or two in a quarter mile race. This again places the emphasis on the driver's shifting ability. Quarter Mile Estimates (tick conservative, based on known engineering data along with a few SWAGs)

Stick - 12.61 @ 115.79
Auto - 12.72 @ 114.50

Will the automatic to manual ratio will be similar to the Corvette ratio? Many will want the stuck in traffic, simple for the wife to drive, still technically fast as hell, slushbox.

If the V development crew benchmarked the ZF automatic transmission of the BMW E60, the tuning of the automatic in the V will be better than any GM product that has come in the past (GM's 6L80E tuning in my pickup *was* rubbish until I fixed it) and truly be worldclass for holding gears, downshifting, etc.

Comes down to apples and oranges. Which do you prefer at 6:00 AM driving to work to get a smile on your face?

P.S. The V is not a racecar. So sayeth GM.

[HiTechRV]

I want whichever has the better 0-60. If they are dead even I'd probably pick the manual.

[StealthV]

Then you'll want the AWD version.

[StealthV]

Originally Posted by HiTechRV

I want whichever has the better 0-60. If they are dead even I'd probably pick the manual.

Crunching the numbers, the equation spits the following times for zero to sixty:

Automatic = 4.60 seconds
Manual = 4.76 seconds

[Cadillac Tony]

Something's not right in your equation, because the '09 is going to do 0-60 in 4 flat.

[StealthV]

That would be wonderful. There's the little bit of 4500 lbs to move that gets in the way.

[Cadillac Tony]

2008 Mercedes E63 AMG

4,315 Curb weight
507hp
465lb-ft tq
0-60 4.3sec

That's basically identical curb weight to the V, but with 50 less hp and 100 lb-ft less torque. 4,500lbs/465tq = 9.68lbs per lb-ft. Compared to the CTS-V 4,500/550(est) = 8.18lbs per lb-ft. That means the Benz has roughly 18% more mass per lb-ft of torque to get moving than the new V will (and that's even assuming that the 550 estimate sticks- chances are it'll be more like 560).

[HiTechRV]

Originally Posted by StealthV

Crunching the numbers, the equation spits the following times for zero to sixty:

Automatic = 4.60 seconds
Manual = 4.76 seconds

Stealth I keep telling you your numbers do not add up. With almost 100 less hp, and a worse, peakier hp curve my STS-V has the numbers you are predicting for the CTS-V. How can my stock car hit those numbers with only 469 hp and a small displacement 4V, and the new CTS-V with almost 2 liters more displacement not do much better than your prediction?