http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0803_2009_cadillac_cts_v

best thread yet. great pics and commentary

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

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.

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

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.

...performance pack and ricardo seats

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

(j/k. couldn't resist.)

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.

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/listing/boatDetails.jsp?&units=Feet&currency=USD&ro=3&r=1737397&rs=yachtworld.com&rt=Express&boat_id=1737397&checked_boats=1737397&No=20&slim=quick&Ntt=oselka&Ntk=boatsEN&sm=3&luom=126&currencyid=100

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.