: March Motor Trend features CTS-V in "First Look"



lawfive
02-02-08, 11:43 AM
LOL, they call it "Cadzilla."

I'll post it when I get a chance.

Cadillac Tony
02-02-08, 12:11 PM
I love the "Cad-zilla" nickname. :lol:

Great article, except for their estimated 0-60 time of 4.5. Click below to read:

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

Dave's V
02-02-08, 12:29 PM
4.5 does seem pretty low when a base Vette gets to 60 in about 4.3 with 120 less hp but about 800 less lbs. 4.5 doesn't seem much an improvement over the last V with 150 less HP. Maybe GM detuned it to keep it below the Vette performance wise.

CVP33
02-02-08, 01:23 PM
4.5 seconds is not "door sucking". It will be much lower. Lutz ain't no liar.

Rich H
02-02-08, 01:28 PM
I have seen performance figures of less than 4 seconds somewhere but it is all speculation until the rubber meets the road with some road tests. I rememeber all the Super Bowl commericals a few years back when Cadillac was touting less than 5 seconds in all their V commericals - times have changed. That benchmark is obviously no longer good enough.

gothicaleigh
02-02-08, 01:29 PM
4.5 does seem pretty low when a base Vette gets to 60 in about 4.3 with 120 less hp but about 800 less lbs. 4.5 doesn't seem much an improvement over the last V with 150 less HP. Maybe GM detuned it to keep it below the Vette performance wise.

The 4.5 in the summary at the end is a very conservative estimation as they themselves put it in the article:


There are no performance figures yet, but by way of context, AMG's E63 Benz nails 60 mph in 4.3 seconds. The new CTS-V weighs about the same and has at least 43 more horses and 85 pound-feet more torque. Draw your own conclusions: The car also has been extensively tested on the legendary Nurburgring Nordschliefe, and while insiders are tight-lipped on the actual lap time -- for now -- they will admit Cadzilla has terrorized factory hotshoes from Munich out on the daunting 13-mile road course. "People who've never been passed by a Cadillac have now had that experience," smiles Piatek.

thebigjimsho
02-02-08, 01:29 PM
Yeah, I think C&D had a low 4 second 0-60 prediction...

concorso
02-02-08, 05:51 PM
Come on, this will be in the very low 4's, if not 4-flat or faster.

Everyone, and I mean everyone in the automotive commmunity knows about the last CTS-V's weak rear end. On top of this, Lutz has been saying over and over how fast this V will be.
If Cadillac screws up and this car is a dog compared to what everyone is speculating, then there won't be another CTS-V. It'll probably be the end of the V series.
This CTS-V has to be as good as they have been speculating, or Cadillac will take a very hard hit that will take another 20 years to get out off.

I dont think we have anything to worry about, they wont let the V leave the factory without it being what they say it is.

lawfive
02-02-08, 07:08 PM
The Caddy people told us "under 4."

Dave's V
02-03-08, 12:08 PM
When the first V arrived, Cadillac said 0-60 in 4.6 seconds. After a couple years of getting their butts handed to them by owners and the press because it couldn't do a 4.6 without launching the V like what they would acuse the owners of abuse they finally just said under 5 (which was right).

I can't blame MT for giving their rating with Cadillac's pass history with the V. After all it is only an estimate. A 4.5 will seem pretty weak though. Not really a big increase over the first Gen V that has 150 less HP. I would say it will hit 60 in the real low 4s pretty often. Probably right around 4.2-4.3.

I just hope the rear axle doesn't shatter itself on one of those first press lauches like the 04 V did.

SkullV
02-03-08, 12:17 PM
There are no performance figures yet, but by way of context, AMG's E63 Benz nails 60 mph in 4.3 seconds. The new CTS-V weighs about the same and has at least 43 more horses and 85 pound-feet more torque. Draw your own conclusions


4.3 or less?

Dave's V
02-03-08, 03:02 PM
4.3 or less?

If that is the case then the V will lose to the C63 when it comes out next year since it is based on the lighter C series. 0-60 figures are hard to compare unless you have the two cars in question racing side by side with the same driver and take out any driver mistakes.

thebigjimsho
02-03-08, 03:05 PM
If that is the case then the V will lose to the C63 when it comes out next year since it is based on the lighter C series. 0-60 figures are hard to compare unless you have the two cars in question racing side by side with the same driver and take out any driver mistakes.Really? The C63 and E63 are just about the same weight. The C class is horribly heavy for such a tiny car. Still, it pulled a 3.9 to 60 according to C&D...

Seattle CTS-V
02-03-08, 04:19 PM
Really? The C63 and E63 are just about the same weight. The C class is horribly heavy for such a tiny car. Still, it pulled a 3.9 to 60 according to C&D...


Yep, the C63 weighs in at about 4000lbs. That's no lightweight for such a small car. I'd love to see anyone repeat that 3.9s 0-60 by C&D. Isn't the car only riding on 255s? Can't see how they could get all that power to the ground. Maybe MB shipped them a factory freak to try and scare the Bimmer guys.

Dave's V
02-03-08, 06:01 PM
Really? The C63 and E63 are just about the same weight. The C class is horribly heavy for such a tiny car. Still, it pulled a 3.9 to 60 according to C&D...

Actually they are 200lb difference and the AMG C63 is a big 400 lbs lighter then the new V. 200 lbs is another ~1/2 pound per hp. http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/13529/first-drive-2008-mercedes-benz-c63-amg-specs-page4.html

Granted it has 100 less HP then the V and the man est time to 62 is 4.5. But at a base price of $62k, it is definitely a competitor to the new V. This is why Cadillac should use the crappy Euro rate to their advantage.

thebigjimsho
02-03-08, 11:57 PM
Actually they are 200lb difference and the AMG C63 is a big 400 lbs lighter then the new V. 200 lbs is another ~1/2 pound per hp. http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/13529/first-drive-2008-mercedes-benz-c63-amg-specs-page4.html

Granted it has 100 less HP then the V and the man est time to 62 is 4.5. But at a base price of $62k, it is definitely a competitor to the new V. This is why Cadillac should use the crappy Euro rate to their advantage.No, you're wrong. They did a comparo with the Audi RS4 and BMW M3 and the C63 was about 4050lbs...just a few pounds under the E63...

Dave's V
02-04-08, 07:26 PM
No, you're wrong. They did a comparo with the Audi RS4 and BMW M3 and the C63 was about 4050lbs...just a few pounds under the E63...

AMG must be wrong then because check out the weight on their site.

http://www.mercedes-amg.com/index2.html?loc=en/lounge/news

1730kg - 68kg driver - gas 90% full and 7kg of luggage. 1 kg = 2.2 lbs which puts it at 3806 lbs before you minus everything.

E63 is 1840kg which is 4048 lbs

The E63's motor does put out 57 more HP though to carry the extra 200lbs.

3800 lbs is not that heavy for a small sports sedan with a 6.3l V-8. Since Mercedes is luxury that definitely is not bad since a V is 400lbs heavier.

lawfive
02-04-08, 10:52 PM
4.3 or less?


If that is the case then the V will lose to the C63 when it comes out next year

Hi kids, Captain Logic here.

"4.3" = lose to the C63

"less" = not necessarily lose to the C63


Anyways... this month's Car & Driver also has a nice spread on the new CTS-V which they nickname the "Bimodal Bullet." I like "Cadzilla" a lot better.

Anyways, C&D projects a 0-60 time of 4.1 seconds. Let the bench races begin!

Katshot
02-05-08, 07:48 AM
When you think about it, does the 0-60 and 1/4 mile ET REALLY matter all that much? Now bare with me here. I'm certainly a power/speed junkie myself but when you think about it, the acceleration times posted in various magazines ALWAYS vary greatly so what's the use? I mean, a CTS-V enthusiast will always go with whatever the best posted time is, just like anyone else but when you factor in all the "other" times posted, it usually points to the fact that with cars at this level, it's quite easy for you to get your clock cleaned by virtually any car that's posted an even close acceleration time due to so many factors, none the least of which is driver capability.
In my mind, although I know it may not be the popular one, I really think that this car has MORE than enough power. Matter of fact, I seriously doubt anyone had an issue with the (by comparison) wimpy output of the Gen. 1 CTS-V. No, I think the power is NOT such a major concern on these cars, and for that reason should not garner such a lion's share of the attention in the car. I think everyone will be more than satisfied with the car's power and will ultimately be more concerned with other issues such as those that ended up being the major issues on the Gen. 1 car. Let's hope GM did their homework and tended to the rest of the car as well as they did the powerplant.

Kadonny
02-05-08, 09:17 AM
When you think about it, does the 0-60 and 1/4 mile ET REALLY matter all that much? Now bare with me here. I'm certainly a power/speed junkie myself but when you think about it, the acceleration times posted in various magazines ALWAYS vary greatly so what's the use? I mean, a CTS-V enthusiast will always go with whatever the best posted time is, just like anyone else but when you factor in all the "other" times posted, it usually points to the fact that with cars at this level, it's quite easy for you to get your clock cleaned by virtually any car that's posted an even close acceleration time due to so many factors, none the least of which is driver capability.
In my mind, although I know it may not be the popular one, I really think that this car has MORE than enough power. Matter of fact, I seriously doubt anyone had an issue with the (by comparison) wimpy output of the Gen. 1 CTS-V. No, I think the power is NOT such a major concern on these cars, and for that reason should not garner such a lion's share of the attention in the car. I think everyone will be more than satisfied with the car's power and will ultimately be more concerned with other issues such as those that ended up being the major issues on the Gen. 1 car. Let's hope GM did their homework and tended to the rest of the car as well as they did the powerplant.

Katshot, it's important when Lutz publically proclaims the new V will suck the doors off an M5. He has to back that up.

Katshot
02-05-08, 09:56 AM
Katshot, it's important when Lutz publically proclaims the new V will suck the doors off an M5. He has to back that up.

Understood. But who's numbers will be the defining factor? Did he REALLY use those words, or are you paraphrasing?

NormV
02-05-08, 12:25 PM
Understood. But who's numbers will be the defining factor? Did he REALLY use those words, or are you paraphrasing?

Kat, lord cad's thread fastest in the world has the quarter mile times of two German cars the lowest being 12.6. Lutz said faster than that.

I am staying with 12.5! :)

Norm

Katshot
02-05-08, 01:34 PM
Kat, lord cad's thread fastest in the world has the quarter mile times of two German cars the lowest being 12.6. Lutz said faster than that.

I am staying with 12.5! :)

Norm

Maybe I'm missing something. If so, please tell me. What I meant is that if Bob specifically said that, first of all, it sounds a little too much like sales talk to me compared to what I believe he'd actually say. But if he did say it, then he better be able to back it up by anybody's yardstick. By that, I mean there can't be any tests that show it being bested by an M5. It's gotta consistently thrash the M5 in every performance test. Traditionally, for a car to do that, it's gotta enjoy a pretty healthy margin of performance superiority and although that remains to be seen, it IS a tall order. If the car is simply close to the M5, even with a slight edge in one or more performance categories, then you can bet your bottom dollar that in some magazines etc., it will come out the loser. At that point, performance isn't the deciding factor and everyone moves on to another point to focus on. This again is why I think the Gen. 1 failed in it's mission. Although it was slightly superior in performance to some of it's competition, it wasn't complete and undeniable. Add to that the fact that it's fit and finish as well as interior styling and quality feel were simply not up to par, and you get an idea of what the Gen. 2 has to accomplish. That said, I think the car just might have the stuff to pull it off. If the car is as nice in person, and drives as nice as I'm hoping, it could certainly continue the uphill climb of Cadillac in the performance sedan market as well as the world market. The Gen. 1 was a great first step, the Gen. 2 must be that and more. IMO, on paper, the car's got my vote.

NormV
02-05-08, 03:39 PM
Check the sticky! Looks like Lutz' has said it twice. Blow the doors off and again in the sticky quoted by Edmunds.

Soon we'll have numbers from the factory which will be the best possible conditions driven by an engineer. The real world numbers, as we have seen they have been stretched in both early C5 Z06 and early CTS-V as the C5 was chasing the Viper and the V chasing the Germans, will come soon. :)


Norm

Seattle CTS-V
02-05-08, 07:35 PM
AMG must be wrong then because check out the weight on their site.

http://www.mercedes-amg.com/index2.html?loc=en/lounge/news

1730kg - 68kg driver - gas 90% full and 7kg of luggage. 1 kg = 2.2 lbs which puts it at 3806 lbs before you minus everything.

E63 is 1840kg which is 4048 lbs

The E63's motor does put out 57 more HP though to carry the extra 200lbs.

3800 lbs is not that heavy for a small sports sedan with a 6.3l V-8. Since Mercedes is luxury that definitely is not bad since a V is 400lbs heavier.


Make sure that you're looking at the US spec C63 though. The European RS4 weighs about 350 lbs less over there than our version. I'm assuming the US C63 will weigh more as well due to tougher crash standards here.

CVP33
02-05-08, 08:00 PM
Lutz was quoted in Motor Trend as saying "...it will suck the doors of an M5.", referring to the CTS-V. He again said, in the video from the NAIAS,
"......we believe this to be the fastest 4 door sedan in the world." I've never known Lutz to not deliver on a promise regarding price or performance. :thumbsup:

Dave's V
02-05-08, 10:45 PM
Make sure that you're looking at the US spec C63 though. The European RS4 weighs about 350 lbs less over there than our version. I'm assuming the US C63 will weigh more as well due to tougher crash standards here.

I've lived in Germany for 8 years, they have extremely tough crash standards. If anything they can detune it to meet US safety standards.

I was mostly comparing the C63 to the E63 which was about a 220 lb difference on their site. I doubt they would add lbs to one and not the other.

I hope the C&D estimates are right for the V. I have no doubt that the new V will beat the definitely more expensive M5 since some mags peg the M5 having a 0-60 of 4.8. I hope he doesn't think that is the top of the class though because there is a lot of competition and not all competition is 0-60 or the quarter.

CVP33
02-05-08, 11:17 PM
Well technically he did say the fastest, so in reality at 183mph or better, it actually is the fastest as the Germans are limited to 155mph. Unless you opt for one of the uber models.

I hope that he meant quickest and fastest. :thumbsup:

Dave's V
02-05-08, 11:50 PM
Regardless, anything close to being 155 or more is extremely fast no matter what kind of car it is. I'm not worried about the new V's power, it is the fit and finish I'm worried about such as sail panels falling off on the rear passengers' heads, radio button's paint chipping off, etc. The fact is that probably 70% of the new V owners will never reach 60% top speed and top 0-60 times will get you labeled as abuse by the service bay. The power is there in the new V, I'm just worried about the original issues.

Katshot
02-06-08, 09:49 AM
Regardless, anything close to being 155 or more is extremely fast no matter what kind of car it is. I'm not worried about the new V's power, it is the fit and finish I'm worried about such as sail panels falling off on the rear passengers' heads, radio button's paint chipping off, etc. The fact is that probably 70% of the new V owners will never reach 60% top speed and top 0-60 times will get you labeled as abuse by the service bay. The power is there in the new V, I'm just worried about the original issues.

Exactly what I've been saying.:thumbsup:

Cadillac Tony
02-06-08, 11:31 AM
It seems we've come full circle in this forum. I got blasted in a different thread for pointing out that the 2008 CTS has had no problems with falling sail panels, flaking buttons or any of the other silly quality goofs that the 1st gen CTS did, and the point still remains:

From a quality of assembly, fit and finish and quality of materials standpoint, the 2nd gen CTS (and therefore the V, by relation) are already a resounding success. Every magazine out there has been blown away by the quality and fit/finish, so there's nothing to worry about with the V in this regard.

Katshot
02-06-08, 11:53 AM
It seems we've come full circle in this forum. I got blasted in a different thread for pointing out that the 2008 CTS has had no problems with falling sail panels, flaking buttons or any of the other silly quality goofs that the 1st gen CTS did, and the point still remains:

From a quality of assembly, fit and finish and quality of materials standpoint, the 2nd gen CTS (and therefore the V, by relation) are already a resounding success. Every magazine out there has been blown away by the quality and fit/finish, so there's nothing to worry about with the V in this regard.

Not sure how you can say that with confidence until production units are in the hands of customers. I mean yeah, it certainly looks promising but...

HiTechRV
02-06-08, 12:21 PM
CTS is already out.

Cadillac Tony
02-06-08, 12:32 PM
For over six months.

As far as fit/finsh and quality, the differences between the CTS and V are elementary. Same sail panels, same dash, same nav, same door handles....we know that these items are top shelf. The only real X-factor is the drivetrain, as that's the only major change.

Katshot
02-06-08, 01:06 PM
For over six months.

As far as fit/finsh and quality, the differences between the CTS and V are elementary. Same sail panels, same dash, same nav, same door handles....we know that these items are top shelf. The only real X-factor is the drivetrain, as that's the only major change.

Yeah, I suppose that's true with respect to interior parts etc. that ARE carry over from the base car. I guess I'm more concerned about the whole package and mostly the items that are either unique to the "V" or items that will garner different reactions from "performance" minded owners.

lawfive
02-06-08, 03:34 PM
What do you want to bet that Lutz' comment wasn't based on 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, but rather on best lap times around the Ring for the mules and/or pre-prods? If so, that would be perfect in my book: power+handling=f u c k an M5.

CVP33
02-06-08, 05:27 PM
GM can't afford a missfire here. So you can bet there won't be. GM and its engineers know the failures of V1, replaying them over and over again serves no purpose. (did I just type that?). I'm confident that GM has addressed ALL of the issues and will deliver the trifecta quality, performance and value.

Cadillac Tony
02-06-08, 05:58 PM
Quick, someone call the police and report that CVP has been kidnapped and replaced by an evil clone! :lol:

Just kidding- I couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

OldRoadDawg
02-06-08, 06:10 PM
"In fact, the goal of the CTS-V is to be the fastest 8-cylinder production sedan in the world."

That is from the first paragraph of the Product Info page after clicking on '09 V Series from Cadillac.com

Does that mean Cadillac is leaving themselves an out, in the event that the doors on the BMW's V-10 M5 or the V-12s from MBZ remain securely attached the body?

Just askin' :hmm:

Dave's V
02-06-08, 07:50 PM
For the V to compete against V-10s and V-12s is an accomplishment. Usually it is the imports that have less number of cylinders.

I know the new CTS has great reviews and I'm hoping those quality problems mentioned don't show up in 6 months. That would leave the potential customers with no confidence. I don't believe they will make the same mistakes again also. That is why I think their performance stats will be conservative at first. Their mistake would be saying the car can get to 60 in x seconds and then practically no one in the world can achieve that stat without increasing the chances of damaging the power train.

I only wish they can fix the dealers (at least some of them also). I don't need to be told I'm abusing a car because the tires are wearing out at around 14k which was quite high for run craps on the V1 from what I have seen on this site or a rear axle that sounded like junk but is "normal".

Katshot
02-08-08, 09:57 AM
"In fact, the goal of the CTS-V is to be the fastest 8-cylinder production sedan in the world."

That is from the first paragraph of the Product Info page after clicking on '09 V Series from Cadillac.com

Does that mean Cadillac is leaving themselves an out, in the event that the doors on the BMW's V-10 M5 or the V-12s from MBZ remain securely attached the body?

Just askin' :hmm:

LOL!!!
I think you got a point my man.

Katshot
02-08-08, 10:04 AM
For the V to compete against V-10s and V-12s is an accomplishment. Usually it is the imports that have less number of cylinders.

I know the new CTS has great reviews and I'm hoping those quality problems mentioned don't show up in 6 months. That would leave the potential customers with no confidence. I don't believe they will make the same mistakes again also. That is why I think their performance stats will be conservative at first. Their mistake would be saying the car can get to 60 in x seconds and then practically no one in the world can achieve that stat without increasing the chances of damaging the power train.

I only wish they can fix the dealers (at least some of them also). I don't need to be told I'm abusing a car because the tires are wearing out at around 14k which was quite high for run craps on the V1 from what I have seen on this site or a rear axle that sounded like junk but is "normal".

But they DID originally go on record with a 4.8 0-60 on Gen. 1 cars, and it was for the most part, a solid number. I've seen test data showing slightly higher and lower numbers.
As for the Gen. 2 base CTS, I just read an article in Consumer Reports that basically gave it great reviews. A couple issues they didn't like were, A/C vents mounted too low on the dash, no "flash-to-pass" feature w/bi-xenon lamps, and no fold-down rear seats but overall they really seemed to like it.
I for one find myself asking whether Cadillac severely cut into "V" market customers by offering the DI engine car. It's overall performance, while substantially below the "V" should be more than sufficient for most customers.

thebigjimsho
02-08-08, 03:11 PM
It's overall performance, while substantially below the "V" should be more than sufficient for most customers.I doubt that highly. The only ones I could see settling for a CTS would be the ones who couldn't afford a V. The difference in the Gen I CTS and V was too great. No doubt the new CTS is all the more potent, but so is the V.

There may be plenty who'd like to own a V. But I doubt that there is very many who cross shop the two...

Katshot
02-08-08, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I realize that. I'm just wondering whether the new CTS w/DI V6 will be potent enough for all but the MOST hard-core. Gen. 1 base car was nothing compared to this DI-powered car. Granted, the new V is much more powerful too but then it's a good deal heavier and more expensive as well. I mean, I can buy a brand new '07 CTS-V for $10,000 less than the expected base price of the Gen. 2. I know because I just got quotes from a local dealer today. The point was just that although the new V is definitely a monster, is it TOO MUCH of a monster for most of the customers out there? I really had no idea the DI engine was so powerful.

thebigjimsho
02-08-08, 03:24 PM
Yeah, I realize that. I'm just wondering whether the new CTS w/DI V6 will be potent enough for all but the MOST hard-core. Gen. 1 base car was nothing compared to this DI-powered car. Granted, the new V is much more powerful too but then it's a good deal heavier and more expensive as well. I mean, I can buy a brand new '07 CTS-V for $10,000 less than the expected base price of the Gen. 2. I know because I just got quotes from a local dealer today. The point was just that although the new V is definitely a monster, is it TOO MUCH of a monster for most of the customers out there? I really had no idea the DI engine was so powerful.You'll see Gen I V owners buying a DI CTS, but only to wait until the V comes out. Or then they go elsewhere. StealthV is looking at one, but only because he doesn't have the V anymore.

HiTechRV
02-08-08, 05:15 PM
You'll see Gen I V owners buying a DI CTS, but only to wait until the V comes out. Or then they go elsewhere. StealthV is looking at one, but only because he doesn't have the V anymore.


I seriously considered it. I ordered an STS-V instead. I'll pick up a new CTS-V probably in the second model year.

lawfive
02-10-08, 01:14 PM
no fold-down rear seats
Ack, I didn't know this.

alcast082
02-10-08, 02:40 PM
OWn an 05 cts-v and even thought the new cts is far ahead in regards to interior I would rather go to a used 335 if I had the choice.
I'm very happy with my rugged V and can't wait to drive the new v but will wait a year to actually purchase one. HOPEFULLY ;)

Flyboy
02-10-08, 07:43 PM
Just read the Magazine article. Well written. I hope all the press is as good as Car and Driver.