So basically the 09 V will be as fast as an 07 Corvette. They should have made the V under 4000 lbs..

So basically the 09 V will be as fast as an 07 Corvette. They should have made the V under 4000 lbs..

....and your point is? A $90,000 M5 isn't even as fast as a 2007 'Vette, so what were you expecting?

This class is all about Performance luxury, and to achieve that you inevitably add weight to a car. If there were a way to make a car ride like a DTS, have the features of an S-Class and weigh the same as an Elise, don't you think they'd build it?

:cookoo:

....and your point is? A $90,000 M5 isn't even as fast as a 2007 'Vette, so what were you expecting?

This class is all about Performance luxury, and to achieve that you inevitably add weight to a car. If there were a way to make a car ride like a DTS, have the features of an S-Class and weigh the same as an Elise, don't you think they'd build it?

:cookoo:

I wasn't making a point, I was just stating fact. Just wish the car was lighter.

I wasn't making a point, I was just stating fact. Just wish the car was lighter.

Did you drive the 09 V...Funny, I still haven't seen one at dealerships yet for some strange reason...

What times are you using for a 2007 Corvette? I see 12.7 1/4 mile and 4.3 0-60. The new CTS-V should eclipse those times.

What times are you using for a 2007 Corvette? I see 12.7 1/4 mile and 4.3 0-60. The new CTS-V should eclipse those times.
I read that a vette with a Z51 suspension package could do 0-60 in 4.1. So I was going by that time;

and [concorso] im not sure what you meant by your comment. When did I say I test drove an '09 V????:hmm: I said i wish the car was lighter (that was the fact I was stating)

power/weight will be better, doesn't really matter how much it weighs.

Besides the 07 isn't the base Vette anyways. The 08 puts out up to 436hp. It still provides the best bang for the buck.

Cadillacs are heavy because of all their luxury features, besides it is a sedan which also adds weight. The Vette can get away with 100+ less HP and maintain the pace of the V if not beat it due to the 1000 lbs it saves. Still with 550hp you are only looking at under 8lbs per hp for the V. The 07 Vette is right around 8 while the 08 is slightly below. Regardless I would take either car in a heartbeat.

1st Gen V is around 10lbs per HP by the way. Although Cadillac said it had a 4.6 0-60 time at first which I remember most of us couldn't do unless you destroy the clutch. Lets say 4.8-5.0 for first gen. 2+ less lbs per hp should push it into the low 4s which is right around the stock C6. At least when you add an extra body or two in the V you won't feel it as much because you have more HP to carry the weight. Unlike some other fast cars like the Lotus that has to make do with 220-240hp.

I could care less about 0-60. Real men race beyond that speed. On a 60+ roll, the V should yank on a LS3 Vette.

power/weight will be better, doesn't really matter how much it weighs.

Yeah, until you try to get it to turn. Power to weight ratio goes out the window once you start talking about handling.

Yeah, until you try to get it to turn. Power to weight ratio goes out the window once you start talking about handling.

.....yet the topic of the thread was 0-60 and 1/4 mile. I don't think anyone's debating that a CTS can outhandle a Corvette, so why do you feel the need to piss on the car in yet another thread?

Yeah, until you try to get it to turn. Power to weight ratio goes out the window once you start talking about handling.

You didn't just say that.

Lets wait till the beast is out and then start whining about the weight. Numbers on paper doesnt tell anything.

Oh BTW stop talking about the 1st gen V, a CTS with a Vette engine doesnt compare to a completly redesigned car inside and out. Im very sure that the new V can gain HUGE numbers because of its factory supercharger

.....yet the topic of the thread was 0-60 and 1/4 mile. I don't think anyone's debating that a CTS can outhandle a Corvette, so why do you feel the need to piss on the car in yet another thread?

Why must you be a such a jerk? I wasn't bashing the car, I was pointing to the comment being made concerning power to weight ratio. Too often, I read people throwing that around like it's the "end-all". Fact is, a good power to weight ratio isn't even a guarantee of a good 1/4 car.

I'm not being a jerk, I'm asking why nearly every comment you have about the 2009 CTS-V is negative. Someone remarked about the power to weight ratio being favorable, and you reply with "Yeah- until you try and turn" :rolleyes:

You haven't driven it yet, nor has anyone tested it, yet all you can do is whine that there's too much power to handle, no awd, CTS-V owners aren't purists, it's too heavy, blah blah blah blah..... Why do you even come in this forum if all you've got for the car is criticism?

I would regard the fact that a fully equipped luxury sedan is capable of keeping up with a coupe purpose-built for performance (not to forget that the coupe in question is also one of the finest performing cars available) as a very good thing. If that does not impress, I don't know what would.

http://www.8thdaycreations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothismile.gif




Yeah, until you try to get it to turn. Power to weight ratio goes out the window once you start talking about handling.

Sounds like an argument against heavy options like AWD to me.

Whoops. Wrong thread. http://www.8thdaycreations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothiraspberry.gif

I'm not being a jerk, I'm asking why nearly every comment you have about the 2009 CTS-V is negative. Someone remarked about the power to weight ratio being favorable, and you reply with "Yeah- until you try and turn" :rolleyes:

You haven't driven it yet, nor has anyone tested it, yet all you can do is whine that there's too much power to handle, no awd, CTS-V owners aren't purists, it's too heavy, blah blah blah blah..... Why do you even come in this forum if all you've got for the car is criticism?

Obviously, you have a problem with me personally and that is affecting your reading comprehension skills. The post I made was in reference to this comment:
"power/weight will be better, doesn't really matter how much it weighs."
Go back and re-read post #10 and you'll see that I specifically quoted that. So it should be relatively simple to understand that my comment was directed toward that comment alone and nothing more. Stop trying to put words in my mouth, you come off like a 12 year old trying.

I don't have a personal problem with you- I have a problem with your uninformed, condescending, presumptive and overwhelmingly negative posts. I usually refrain from arguing semantics with someone ill equipped to compete, but since you opened the floodgates:

-The thread is about 1/4 mile times and 0-60.
-The person you responded to was referring to 1/4 mile times and 0-60.
-This entire conversation you have interjected your opinion and arrogance into is about 1/4 mile times and 0-60.

Whose reading comprehension sucks now?

Sounds like an argument against heavy options like AWD to me.

Whoops. Wrong thread. http://www.8thdaycreations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothiraspberry.gif

:lol:

:golf clap:

I don't have a personal problem with you- I have a problem with your uninformed, condescending, presumptive and overwhelmingly negative posts. I usually refrain from arguing semantics with someone ill equipped to compete, but since you opened the floodgates:

-The thread is about 1/4 mile times and 0-60.
-The person you responded to was referring to 1/4 mile times and 0-60.
-This entire conversation you have interjected your opinion and arrogance into is about 1/4 mile times and 0-60.

Whose reading comprehension sucks now?

First of all, who said that the original post (or this thread for that matter) are specifically ONLY about 0-60 and 1/4 mile times?
Secondly, if you read the original post followed by your post, it reads to me like you were being rather argumentative. The first post, all of two sentences, were basically a question followed by a statement. And for that, the guy gets pounced on. For some reason, you've had a chip on your shoulder through this whole thread. Take a friggin' pill.
And again I say you need to pay a little more attention to what the posts say. You seem to read things into them that simply aren't there.
All I was trying to point out is that simply relying on a favorable power to weight ratio is a rather simplistic way of looking at the issue. We obviously had slightly different "takes" on what the thread was about but I'm not the one that was arrogant and condescending. You set that tone right from the start.

I'm just sick of all the negativity about the cars. Go back and read the threads from when the first CTS-V was announced - everyone was "Wow!", "Awesome!" and "Can't wait!"

Now it's all "It's too heavy, it needs AWD, you can't change the pulley, I don't like the wheels, this car is better, that car is better, the suede wheel will get sweaty from my delicate little hands, blah blah blah blah."

This seems less like a board for Cadillac enthusiasts and more like a board for people who wished they owned an AMG every day.

I'm just sick of all the negativity about the cars. Go back and read the threads from when the first CTS-V was announced - everyone was "Wow!", "Awesome!" and "Can't wait!"

Now it's all "It's too heavy, it needs AWD, you can't change the pulley, I don't like the wheels, this car is better, that car is better, the suede wheel will get sweaty from my delicate little hands, blah blah blah blah."

This seems less like a board for Cadillac enthusiasts and more like a board for people who wished they owned an AMG every day.

Understood, but it's not fair to blame me for that. Personally, as I've said numerous times here, I can't wait to actually see it in person, and feel very optimistic about it in the marketplace. Time will tell though.

:rofl:

its so deep in here its just funny

remember what your mama told you "its not what you say its how you say it" sometimes

So basically the 09 V will be as fast as an 07 Corvette. They should have made the V under 4000 lbs..
I'm going to reopen this thread but I don't want the same old argument starting up again. All I want to do is ask a simple question to the original poster.

What should the 2009 CTS-V sacrifice in order to become lighter?

I'm going to reopen this thread but I don't want the same old argument starting up again. All I want to do is ask a simple question to the original poster.

What should the 2009 CTS-V sacrifice in order to become lighter?

Everything that doesn't make it go faster. Damnit, I'm not helping again. :canttalk:

^ :lol:

Seriously though (and I know you were kidding), once you start stripping out luxury features and soundproofing in the name of weight, you might as well drop the price $20 grand and sell it as a Pontiac.

I'm going to reopen this thread but I don't want the same old argument starting up again. All I want to do is ask a simple question to the original poster.

What should the 2009 CTS-V sacrifice in order to become lighter?

Good question Sal. I'd say that only the engineers who designed it could answer you though. You and I spoke about this before and I guess I'm still struggling with the weight because I see it as being about 100lbs. less than a last Gen. Fleetwood (and that car was a boat with an all-iron engine).
Maybe it's time to go with a 48 volt electrical system? That would pull a great deal of weight from the car. Maybe there's some "bloat" that could be cut here and there? Lighter wheels? Lighter brake components? Use some composites, aluminum or magnesium to replace steel? I'm not sure weight was all that big of a concern, especially since there was so much power to weight ratio talk going on from the ivory tower. Is that how the design team REALLY felt, or is that simply a marketing ploy to deflect criticism?
Too many unanswered questions. But as I've said before, simply dumping more power into the mix isn't the right way to go IMO, even though it sure gets people stirred up and drooling. At some point, You gotta start going in the other direction. Creating a good power to weight ratio at a lower level is a smarter way to go IMO.

I think we all just need to weight and see how it performs at this wait. :p

Everyone was shocked to find out the GTR accomplished sub 7:40 'ring times while weighing in at 3800 lbs. That's damn heavy for a coupe that performed at supercar levels. Makes a 4300 lb sedan sound not so bad.

don't forget the driver.....so start dieting now you fatties :)

don't forget the driver.....so start dieting now you fatties :)


:histeric:

You have to be moving on Nurburgring to get air. This V gets air 6 times in a lap. I'm thinking the straight line and cornering performance will be acceptable LOL.

To save weight I'd go aluminum trunk lid and hood, and carbon fiber roof. You save a lot of weight and lower the center of gravity. But that will ring up the $$$!

I'm going to reopen this thread but I don't want the same old argument starting up again. All I want to do is ask a simple question to the original poster.

What should the 2009 CTS-V sacrifice in order to become lighter?

Ok I have an answer for you! Maybe the V shouldn't sacrifice anything..Instead they should have used the same supercharger as on the ZR-1 and the V should have the same HP output as the ZR-1. This way it would be faster than it is with 550hp but not even close to the ZR-1 because of the weight difference. I just want the 09 V to be as fast as a LS7 Z06.:banana:

With the horsepower wars probably coming to an end, Katshot has a point about the weight. Then again, as Tony said, take off this and that, and now it's a Pontiac. So you can't remove the luxuries - but maybe there's a way with the building materials. It IS odd to me how the CTS-V is smaller than a Fleetwood but ends-up weighing the same. Maybe it just needs heavier materials for reinforcement or something.

Will the horsepower wars end? Maybe. Many people feel companies are irresponsible for producing such high performance gas guzzling vehicles. Personally, I don't see it to be such a problem being that so few people are buying them. So at that thought, maybe it's not coming to an end. Maybe these vehicles will simply be that much more exclusive...

In any event, it would be nice to see them weight less. And I'm sure if GM can figure out a good way to do it, they will...

I think you're probably right Sal. Costs in the way of extra taxes could be used to dissuade people from buying high performance/low-economy cars, OR it's possible the 70's could repeat themselves and legislation/insurance costs could take a healthy bite out of this market segment. Either way, it would certainly cause these type of cars to become more exclusive.
But IMO, this is precisely why I feel the OEMs must stop the insanity and start moving the weight bar DOWN. Think Lotus Elise and you'll see where I'm looking for direction. Power to weight ratio that will pin you to your seat AND handle like a slot-car! All in a package that can be made to run pretty darn economical. Start doing THAT in some quantity, and the costs will tumble. No real down-side there.

I think you're probably right Sal. Costs in the way of extra taxes could be used to dissuade people from buying high performance/low-economy cars, OR it's possible the 70's could repeat themselves and legislation/insurance costs could take a healthy bite out of this market segment. Either way, it would certainly cause these type of cars to become more exclusive.
But IMO, this is precisely why I feel the OEMs must stop the insanity and start moving the weight bar DOWN. Think Lotus Elise and you'll see where I'm looking for direction. Power to weight ratio that will pin you to your seat AND handle like a slot-car! All in a package that can be made to run pretty darn economical. Start doing THAT in some quantity, and the costs will tumble. No real down-side there.

Hmm, 20+ mpg in the cofort of a CTS-V with 550hp or ride around in a go-kart for better fuel mileage. I have no problem with wanting to reduce the weight but don't sacrifice on the comfort and amenities to do it. I like my performance with comfort.

Hmm, 20+ mpg in the cofort of a CTS-V with 550hp or ride around in a go-kart for better fuel mileage. I have no problem with wanting to reduce the weight but don't sacrifice on the comfort and amenities to do it. I like my performance with comfort.

Who suggested that you should give up any creature comforts? The point was to produce a car with similar power to weight ratio, only at a lower level. Say knock the weight off by 20% and then you can have the same power to weight ratio with 20% less engine. And at that level, the car will certainly be able to enjoy better handling and fuel economy.

just increase HP. They should have used the same set up as the ZR-1

just increase HP. They should have used the same set up as the ZR-1They wouldn't do that because that setup is exclusive for the ZR-1. If words got out that the CTS-V was using the exact engine as the ZR-1 people wouldn't buy the Corvette that would cost over double the price as a CTS-V and on top of it the price would get bumped up as well. But be expecting cars to get more and more heavy over time because of safety features weight the cars down. Rumor has it that the Challenger is tipping the scales at 4400 lbs!

just increase HP. They should have used the same set up as the ZR-1

A little too simplistic. Besides, you think 550hp isn't enough?

John Heinricy already put the "no car is allowed to be faster than a 'Vette" rumor to bed, so why does everyone keep bringing it up? It's not true. The CTS-V could have 700 hp and it wouldn't outgun the ZR-1 simply due to weight.

The reason they didn't use the ZR-1 engine in the V is because of the expense involved in building that engine- the exotic materials and hand built nature of that engine would easily take the cost of the CTS-V into the stratosphere, maybe even higher than the AMGs. Since they're spending tons of money on luxuries that the ZR-1 doesn't have they need to cut costs elsewhere, and in this case it was possible to get almost as much power out of the engine and still save a ton of money by making the changes they did.

Who suggested that you should give up any creature comforts? The point was to produce a car with similar power to weight ratio, only at a lower level. Say knock the weight off by 20% and then you can have the same power to weight ratio with 20% less engine. And at that level, the car will certainly be able to enjoy better handling and fuel economy.

I agree that this would be great, but I think it's a lot less expensive to add power than it is to reduce weight. Easy weight reductions (like pulling the spare, navigation, heated seats, etc) would be easy, but you can't compromise luxury. The only place left to go is using exotic materials like CF or magnesium, and I think that would be far more expensive than just bumping up the boost and retuning the engine.

Easy weight reductions (like pulling the spare, navigation, heated seats, etc) would be easy, but you can't compromise luxury. Why not? It worked for this car

http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/features/2005/expensive-cars/03-large/mercedes-clk-gtr.jpg

I keed, I keed

John Heinricy already put the "no car is allowed to be faster than a 'Vette" rumor to bed, so why does everyone keep bringing it up? It's not true.

Well there's my claim to fame! I asked John that question in the conference. However, I do hope it's true. I mean - he could just be saying that. But, I don't think so...

Well there's my claim to fame! I asked John that question in the conference. However, I do hope it's true. I mean - he could just be saying that. But, I don't think so...

A new XLR-V would tell for sure. That is a car that should end up being a luxury version of the ZR1. It may get edged out by the ZR1 in performance due to the necessary added creature comforts, but there should be no excuse to load it with a less potent engine if the "no car shall outperform the Corvette" rule is truly a myth.

Take a ZR1, add a Cadillac body, a handcrafted interior, a few innovative gadgets, and we can go hunting after the top of the line AMGs (and maybe take another shot at LeMans to build credibility). It would be this generation's '59 Eldorado Biarritz. Excess in every way.

Don't be surprised if the next XLR is more along the line of the Cien concept instead of the Corvette based model we currently have. Cadillac was very wise to use the Corvette chassis to keep costs low while rebuilding Cadillac's status. With the '08 CTS drawing massive praise, the coupe concept knocking everyone's socks off and the 2009 CTS-V getting the attention it is, the reinvention of the brand is in full swing.

Once Cadillac is fully credible in the world again, expect to see more unique chassis and powertrains in them.

I agree with Gothicaleigh.. Let's see what the next XLR-V is like before we take what John said to heart. Otherwise, Cadillac isn't even sure if there's going to BE a next XLR right now. Though it would be kinda silly to stop building it as it makes the Corvette platform make that much more sense.

Anything like the Cien would be pretty amazing!

John Heinricy already put the "no car is allowed to be faster than a 'Vette" rumor to bed, so why does everyone keep bringing it up? It's not true. The CTS-V could have 700 hp and it wouldn't outgun the ZR-1 simply due to weight.

The reason they didn't use the ZR-1 engine in the V is because of the expense involved in building that engine- the exotic materials and hand built nature of that engine would easily take the cost of the CTS-V into the stratosphere, maybe even higher than the AMGs. Since they're spending tons of money on luxuries that the ZR-1 doesn't have they need to cut costs elsewhere, and in this case it was possible to get almost as much power out of the engine and still save a ton of money by making the changes they did.



I agree that this would be great, but I think it's a lot less expensive to add power than it is to reduce weight. Easy weight reductions (like pulling the spare, navigation, heated seats, etc) would be easy, but you can't compromise luxury. The only place left to go is using exotic materials like CF or magnesium, and I think that would be far more expensive than just bumping up the boost and retuning the engine.

I think that I'll believe that my feelings about "nothing being able to outpower/outperform the Corvette" are incorrect when they are proven so by GM actually producing an example, not just simply because some corporate suit says so.
And as for weight shedding being labeled as too expensive as compared to increasing HP, I think the issue is a little more complicated than that but still you may be right. But I think that's about to change, and I think it would be wise for GM to be ahead of the curve for once, rather than playing catch-up.

I agree with Gothicaleigh.. Let's see what the next XLR-V is like before we take what John said to heart. Otherwise, Cadillac isn't even sure if there's going to BE a next XLR right now. Though it would be kinda silly to stop building it as it makes the Corvette platform make that much more sense.

Anything like the Cien would be pretty amazing!

I wouldn't be surprised to see the car pulled from the lineup, especially the "V" version. Sales have been in the toilet from the start and to be honest, I doubt the car has even made up for it's own initial start-up costs.
Face it, it's all about sales. The car doesn't sell, the car gets axed. It's just that simple in the end.
I told them years ago, and I'll say it here again, if you really want to sell an XLR type car, dump the damn name and call it ELDORADO. Then, load it with an exclusive option package. It MUST have options that are not available on any other car. Exclusivity MUST be uncompromised. A tarted-up, de-tuned version of a Chevy is NOT what I call worthy of a near $100,000 price tag.

Halo cars are a show case of what is possible, not a cash cow.

Norm

I wouldn't be surprised to see the car pulled from the lineup, especially the "V" version. Sales have been in the toilet from the start and to be honest, I doubt the car has even made up for it's own initial start-up costs.
Face it, it's all about sales. The car doesn't sell, the car gets axed. It's just that simple in the end.
I told them years ago, and I'll say it here again, if you really want to sell an XLR type car, dump the damn name and call it ELDORADO. Then, load it with an exclusive option package. It MUST have options that are not available on any other car. Exclusivity MUST be uncompromised. A tarted-up, de-tuned version of a Chevy is NOT what I call worthy of a near $100,000 price tag.

Halo cars are a show case of what is possible, not a cash cow.

Norm

Question 1:
So what's so special on the XLR that you would consider it a "...show case of what is possible..."?
Question 2:
Do you realize the difference between not being a "cash cow" and being a "loss-leader"?
Cadillac - and GM for that matter - can't afford to keep high-cost, low-profit cars for very long. Besides, I truly think the XLR has failed miserably as a "halo car" (if that's what it's actually supposed to be). I think Cadillac knew it would be a small market but I'm relatively sure sales have been even lower than they expected (damn, I wish my subscription to Automotive News hadn't run out).

So what's so special on the XLR that you would consider it a "...show case of what is possible..."?

Evoq design. Good enough for me.
It's also Cadillac's first modern effort at a roadster (ignoring the Allante which was abandoned over a decade earlier). It will improve and sales will increase as Cadillac's name regains cache as a luxury brand.


A tarted-up, de-tuned version of a Chevy

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/customavatars/avatar31_0.gif

MSRP for a base Chevy Caprice was about $17k.
MSRP for a base Fleetwood was about $33k.

Ford released a cheapo Jaguar in the X-Type, and even though they sold a bunch it ruined Jaguar's image by diluting the exclusivity and perceived quality.

The XLR might not be a runaway sales success, but it made people take note of Cadillac when they might never have before. It's a head turner, and it gets people to go to the web site or stop in a Dealer before getting that next MB or BMW.

Halo cars are not supposed to be gearhead utopia. The XLR does have very good road appeal and Goth has cacked that up.

Figure the first C5 Corvette cost around $19K to build and sold it for double. Not sure what the C6 costs but you can see every XLR making a profit especially since they are made on the same line.

Norm

Evoq design. Good enough for me.
It's also Cadillac's first modern effort at a roadster (ignoring the Allante which was abandoned over a decade earlier). It will improve and sales will increase as Cadillac's name regains cache as a luxury brand.




http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/customavatars/avatar31_0.gif

MSRP for a base Chevy Caprice was about $17k.
MSRP for a base Fleetwood was about $33k.

Nice try but the problem with the Evoq to XLR transition was multi-faceted. First, the Evoq promised what Cadillac could not deliver. Ultimately, after one of the longest gestation periods in modern time, the XLR hit the only way it could, by borrowing heavily from the only decent car in GM inventory that was close to it. In the end, most customers gave up waiting and bought something else. Those who didn't weren't as impressed by the XLR as they had hoped to be. Yes, ultimately SOME did actually buy the car but most bought after being swayed by DEEP discounts etc. between that, and the ever present inventory backlog, I think it's a pretty safe to say that NOBODY is claiming any degree of success for the car.
And as for the thinly disguised shot at MY car, the Fleetwood was anything but a "halo-car" matter of fact it was the most low-tech car in the Cadillac lineup for years, and one of it's lowest priced as well. And drawing a parallel between it and a Chevy Caprice only draws the even larger picture of platform sharing. Virtually EVERY RWD car in GM's history shared the same basic layout as those in the same or recent model year. So I gotta say, WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

Ford released a cheapo Jaguar in the X-Type, and even though they sold a bunch it ruined Jaguar's image by diluting the exclusivity and perceived quality.

The XLR might not be a runaway sales success, but it made people take note of Cadillac when they might never have before. It's a head turner, and it gets people to go to the web site or stop in a Dealer before getting that next MB or BMW.

Sorry but you can't place the burden of a tarnished image solely on the X-Type. The S-Type and terrible build quality were what killed that brand cache IMO.

Halo cars are not supposed to be gearhead utopia. The XLR does have very good road appeal and Goth has cacked that up.

Figure the first C5 Corvette cost around $19K to build and sold it for double. Not sure what the C6 costs but you can see every XLR making a profit especially since they are made on the same line.

Norm

That's nice, but you didn't answer my question. You proposed what a "halo-car" is. Now tell me how that relates to the XLR?
And as for Goth, he/she hasn't got a handle on anything in this thread that I can see.

Jaguar sucks because Ford ruined it by mainstreaming it's cars, delaying improvements to the XJ's and pissing away their cache with poorly thought out X-Types and S-Types. The new XF is the biggest joke yet. The XKR is the only redeeming model in their lineup. Aston Martin looks for Cadillac prices.

Cadillac is definitely on the upswing again. The new Escalade, CTS and derivatives all look great. I need to see more of their direction for the SRX, DTS and STS before I proclaim them in any kind of renaissance. As for thier show cars:

Evoq 1999 - Great styling exercise to prepare the public for the new direction of Cadillac. Ultimately became the XLR. XLR is a great car, but probably answered a question no one was asking. New technologies for Cadillac:

Night vision
Supercharged Northstar
Parking aid
Rear view cameras
Voice activated NAV
Communiport/Microsoft - Multimedia information system and email
4 channel stability control
4T60 LE electronically controlled transmission
Michelin runflats anchored to the rimImaj 2000 - Ugly as sin, but the front end ultimately became the CTS. More of the same techno bits, On Star first appears and brembo brakes. Hmmmm.

Vizon 2001 - Here comes the SRX. Nothing much to report here, but it did have adaptive cruise control, the expanded vista sunroof (or whatever they call that huge sunroof), turn by turn NAV and key proximity sensing theft deterent system.

Cien 2002 - Beautiful car, lambo doors, V12 with 750HP........you just had to know this would never be built. Every techno-widgit known to man plus displacement on demand, direction injection, paddle shift and a combination starter/generator.

Sixteen 2003 - You can't help but think of the old custom built coaches from the 30's and 40's when you see this car. Like a Delahay, this car is low, long and somehow you can't take your eyes off it. 1,000 hp V16 and who cares what other crap they decided to tack on. It's got 1,000 HP for crying out loud!

Provoq 2008 - You're probably looking at the new SRX. The platform was primarily used to show off the hydrogen/electric fuel cell technology. In addition to the power plant, innovations include; brake by wire, shift by wire, a grille that closes at hwy speeds to reduce drag, low-rolling resistance tires, on board USB ports.

Come on Kat!

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/halo_car/

You guys have to pull a little more from just this forum and the magazine rack! :)

Norm

That's nice, but you didn't answer my question. You proposed what a "halo-car" is. Now tell me how that relates to the XLR?
And as for Goth, he/she hasn't got a handle on anything in this thread that I can see.

Nice try but the problem with the Evoq to XLR transition was multi-faceted. First, the Evoq promised what Cadillac could not deliver.

It was more closely related to the concept than many production cars. In 1999, the Evoq's styling was nothing short of groundbreaking and Cadillac faithfully carried it's Art&Science design philosophy over into the production car very well.

Ultimately, after one of the longest gestation periods in modern time,

...yet another similarity!

1988 Cadillac Voyage Concept

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd251/tenmark262/dr88voy2.jpg

1988 - Voyage
1993 - Fleetwood

1999 - Evoq
2004 - XLR

the XLR hit the only way it could, by borrowing heavily from the only decent car in GM inventory that was close to it.

...and the Fleetwood hit the only way it could, by borrowing heavily from the only decent car in GM inventory that was close to it. (to paraphrase the point)

In the end, most customers gave up waiting and bought something else. Those who didn't weren't as impressed by the XLR as they had hoped to be. Yes, ultimately SOME did actually buy the car but most bought after being swayed by DEEP discounts etc. between that, and the ever present inventory backlog, I think it's a pretty safe to say that NOBODY is claiming any degree of success for the car.

First 2 years of XLR production:
2004 - 4,387
2005 - 4,190

First 2 years of Allante production:
1987 - 3,363
1988 - 2,569

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many SL500's or XK8's were produced in 2004?

And as for the thinly disguised shot at MY car,

Thinly disguised?
I used your avatar!
I can't get any more direct than that. http://www.8thdaycreations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothiraspberry.gif

the Fleetwood was anything but a "halo-car" matter of fact it was the most low-tech car in the Cadillac lineup for years, and one of it's lowest priced as well. And drawing a parallel between it and a Chevy Caprice only draws the even larger picture of platform sharing. Virtually EVERY RWD car in GM's history shared the same basic layout as those in the same or recent model year.

The CTS, SRX, and STS are all RWD and all Cadillac.

So I gotta say, WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

You were criticising the XLR for platform sharing with a Corvette yet costing a whole lot more. I was simply pointing out the similarities to your own much ballyhooed Fleetwood (which, after a respectable initial year, was also a sales flop).

It was more closely related to the concept than many production cars. In 1999, the Evoq's styling was nothing short of groundbreaking and Cadillac faithfully carried it's Art&Science design philosophy over into the production car very well.



...yet another similarity!

1988 Cadillac Voyage Concept

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd251/tenmark262/dr88voy2.jpg

1988 - Voyage
1993 - Fleetwood

1999 - Evoq
2004 - XLR



...and the Fleetwood hit the only way it could, by borrowing heavily from the only decent car in GM inventory that was close to it. (to paraphrase the point)



First 2 years of XLR production:
2004 - 4,387
2005 - 4,190

First 2 years of Allante production:
1987 - 3,363
1988 - 2,569

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many SL500's or XK8's were produced in 2004?



Thinly disguised?
I used your avatar!
I can't get any more direct than that. http://www.8thdaycreations.com/images/gothicaleigh/gothiraspberry.gif



The CTS, SRX, and STS are all RWD and all Cadillac.



You were criticising the XLR for platform sharing with a Corvette yet costing a whole lot more. I was simply pointing out the similarities to your own much ballyhooed Fleetwood (which, after a respectable initial year, was also a sales flop).

Again, you missed the point.
I never said that platform sharing is bad. I never said that utilizing it on the XLR was in any way unique or abnormal. My point was that IMO the XLR being a "halo-car" doesn't have the luxury of being a re-badge type of car.
And why you keep harping on the Fleetwood is beyond me. As I said before, it was not anywhere near a "halo-car". Matter of fact, it was the old workhorse of the Cadillac lineup. And the Last Gen. one was already planned to be gone in a couple years by the time it came out. Plans had already been made to convert the B&D body production lines to SUV production. There's no argument that the B&D cars were not only near direct rebadges (more so the B cars than the D) but ancient in overall design.

My point was that IMO the XLR being a "halo-car" doesn't have the luxury of being a re-badge type of car.

By your definition of "re-badge", the Audi R8 is a re-badged Gallardo. I don't think anyone would suggest that makes it less of a Halo car.

The XLR shares the 170" hydroformed steel frame rails and floorpan with the Corvette, but the engine, interior, wheels, brakes, convertible top and every single exterior body panel are unique. Platform sharing and re-badging are two very different things.

A Pontiac Transport is a rebadged Chevy Venture- body panels, powertrain and all. The XLR is not a rebadged Corvette.

I dont konw that you can compare a rebadged chevy to a rebadged Lambo

At least the Chevy's a little more reliable than the Lambo, eh? :D

By your definition of "re-badge", the Audi R8 is a re-badged Gallardo. I don't think anyone would suggest that makes it less of a Halo car.

The XLR shares the 170" hydroformed steel frame rails and floorpan with the Corvette, but the engine, interior, wheels, brakes, convertible top and every single exterior body panel are unique. Platform sharing and re-badging are two very different things.

A Pontiac Transport is a rebadged Chevy Venture- body panels, powertrain and all. The XLR is not a rebadged Corvette.

I realize it's not a rebadge in the truest sense of the word but you know what I meant. Not looking to argue about the exact percentage of carry-over parts.

I know what you meant, but I still don't agree. If GM has a stellar chassis in one of its lower priced brands, I see nothing wrong with putting a tuxedo on it, upping the luxury quotient and calling it a Cadillac. It's part of the reason why you can get a 450hp XLR-V for less than a 380hp MB SL55, and all the luxury options are standard (as opposed to optional on the Benz).

If there was no such thing as a CTS, STS or SRX, the price of a CTS-V would need to be astronomical to recoup the development costs. Do the CTS roots make the V any less of car?

The CTS-V is a whole other thing. As I've said MANY times so far, you can't use other cars as an example here. I swear I said I have no issue with platform sharing etc. It makes total sense from a dollars and cents standpoint.
My problem with the XLR is just that IF it's supposed to be a "halo-car" then I think it should be a totally unique car, or at least substantially unique, AND have options not found in any other car in the lineup. By that definition, the car simply does not make the grade. Obviously, this is only MY opinion, but I think that the rather lack-luster sales of the car say much about it's perceived value in the market place as well.
Anyway, how the heck did we get into this from where the thread started? I'm getting tired of talking about the XLR. IMO, the car's not worth the effort expended on it, even just in this thread.

Evoq 1999 - Great styling exercise to prepare the public for the new direction of Cadillac. Ultimately became the XLR. XLR is a great car, but probably answered a question no one was asking. New technologies for Cadillac:
Night vision
Supercharged Northstar
Parking aid
Rear view cameras
Voice activated NAV
Communiport/Microsoft - Multimedia information system and email
4 channel stability control
4T60 LE electronically controlled transmission
Michelin runflats anchored to the rimImaj 2000 - Ugly as sin, but the front end ultimately became the CTS. More of the same techno bits, On Star first appears and brembo brakes. Hmmmm.

Vizon 2001 - Here comes the SRX. Nothing much to report here, but it did have adaptive cruise control, the expanded vista sunroof (or whatever they call that huge sunroof), turn by turn NAV and key proximity sensing theft deterent system.

Cien 2002 - Beautiful car, lambo doors, V12 with 750HP........you just had to know this would never be built. Every techno-widgit known to man plus displacement on demand, direction injection, paddle shift and a combination starter/generator.

Sixteen 2003 - You can't help but think of the old custom built coaches from the 30's and 40's when you see this car. Like a Delahay, this car is low, long and somehow you can't take your eyes off it. 1,000 hp V16 and who cares what other crap they decided to tack on. It's got 1,000 HP for crying out loud!

Provoq 2008 - You're probably looking at the new SRX. The platform was primarily used to show off the hydrogen/electric fuel cell technology. In addition to the power plant, innovations include; brake by wire, shift by wire, a grille that closes at hwy speeds to reduce drag, low-rolling resistance tires, on board USB ports.


Bingo!

Thats what concept cars are all about... testing new designs and new technologies.

If you remember back to the days of the Evoq (I remember picking my mouth of the floor when I saw it at an auto show) it was at the time,
just that, a concept car. It was the overwhelming response that it got that made Cadillac scratch their head and say, "maybe we should make this car somehow". They did it the only way they could via the Corvette.

It has only been recently, thanks to the onslaught of the retro cars especially the Mustang, that concepts have become more of a realistic glimpse of what you will see in the showroom a year or two down the road.
The concepts today are different from the concepts of the Evoqs time and earlier. Today you almost get the same car in the showroom as you saw at the auto show.

The worlds best (Most powerful) Cadillac and people are complaining?

The new CTS V will easily run with the 2008 C6 Z51 Corvette...and thats dam impressive.

Anybody remember car and drivers test of the 2007 400hp LS2 C6 track test where it beat the twin turbo Porsche 911 ..?

This new CTS V will be awesome!

Do I wish it had AWD? Yes.. is it a necessity for success ? Absolutely not..

World class sports sedan that in my opinion will be the worlds best..(under 100 grand anyway)

Can't wait till it hits the magazine tests and then the road where we can see them running in the wild..

PTM sounds awesome too!

BTW..the XLR V has a different focus.. Its a luxury sports convertible...and it wouldn't be terrible if we began to see cadillac share the LSA motor but its not going to happen all at once..

The STS and XLR do tend towards more sophisticated buyers ie. DOHC and supercharged is impressively smooth..What would I prefer? Well as an owner of a CTS AWD and a Corvette C6? I'd like or at least hope sometime in the future GM offers a CTS Sport for 50 grand with AWD and a naturally aspirated LS3..

Now that would be an interesting stepping stone for the CTS lineup and that new coupe looks hot too..

Down the road maybe a CTS AWD convertible hardtop with 300, 430 and 550 hp options..

And the list goes on..

The bottom line is GM has a true winner with the various variations that the CTS offers..

It will be the volume leader for Cadillac brand in the not too distant future and well deserved too..

Sure cadillac will begin with a greater luxury STS/DTS model...and then a lower priced RWD smaller sedan which will then become the volume leader..

Sorry to go off topic..

This new CTS V will be a crowning jewel for the near future..

It just doesn't get any better!

Wish I could have one..

Not going to see a pushrod small block move into more Cadillacs. We have something special here.

550 hp CTS V with OHV is awesome..

The 430hp LS3 would be a cool CTS AWD Sport for 50 grand...!

JMO

Just do the math. It should beat the 08 vette.

Not going to see a pushrod small block move into more Cadillacs. We have something special here.

Think so, huh?

Not going to see a pushrod small block move into more Cadillacs. We have something special here.

They are putting a version in the Buicks! Granted it is front wheel drive. So the oil filled engine mounts and tame the 5.3l for the blue hairs don't think you will not see one for the wreath crowd! :)

They are putting a version in the Buicks! Granted it is front wheel drive. So the oil filled engine mounts and tame the 5.3l for the blue hairs don't think you will not see one for the wreath crowd! :)

LOL I like that 5.3l in the Super with it's ABS based LSD. At 150 mph that car is faster than the GN and GNX (and quicker than the first year GN to boot). But Buick is not Cadillac and it's not happening.

GM can make it AWD and put an SMG type tranny in it if you do not mind paying $90k for it.

Tony, you had a Cimaron, didn't you?!

Norm


I know what you meant, but I still don't agree. If GM has a stellar chassis in one of its lower priced brands, I see nothing wrong with putting a tuxedo on it, upping the luxury quotient and calling it a Cadillac. It's part of the reason why you can get a 450hp XLR-V for less than a 380hp MB SL55, and all the luxury options are standard (as opposed to optional on the Benz).

If there was no such thing as a CTS, STS or SRX, the price of a CTS-V would need to be astronomical to recoup the development costs. Do the CTS roots make the V any less of car?

^ :lol:

Good one, but I've already covered the differences between a "rebadge" and "platform sharing". Cars like the RS4, CLS AMG, M5, CTS-V and Audi R8 wouldn't exist if there wasn't an existing platform to start working from to defray development costs. Halo cars like this are built mainly for the image of the brand, and could never be built at an attainable price if they had to include chassis development into the budget.

Do I wish it had AWD? Yes.. is it a necessity for success ? Absolutely not..


Aye.

The 430hp LS3 would be a cool CTS AWD Sport for 50 grand...!
JMO

Loaded V6 is right at $50k so let's say $55K fora LS3 loaded with options? Is it too close to the V in price or the perfect baby V to balance the big dog LSA powered V? Sort of the BMW offerings - a handful of base models and M.

I don't think and its just my opinion....but a LS3 powered CTS sport could run from 40 on up...to 55 g's...

I'd like one with an automatic tranny, awd, fe2 suspension.

All the rest being optional or with various packages..

Maybe its too close to te upcoming Pontiac G8 GXP but I think it would be one hell of a performer..

Maybe te awd system can't handle the torque? of either the LS3 or the LSA...

either way...the new CTS V is going to be a segment leader without a doubt.

Best sports sedan in the world under 100 grand.

JMO

Sounds like the new V should have been basically left alone and repowered with something like a LS3 or L92 (love mine & the engine is used in the Escalade for "family" genes).

For the naturally aspirated V8, price it near where the first gen V was and add optional AWD (with AT or MT) for a few thousand more.

And similar to a "base", Z06 and ZR1 three-level Vette family, have the top level Super-V for those with additional disposable income.

CTS Family Base Price / Power / Engine
Entry level / $37k / 300 hp / LLT (drop the base engine)
............V / $47k / 427 hp / L92
...Super-V / $57k / 575 hp / LSA

Putting my GM perspective hat on - Would this 4XX horsepower V pull in new additional buyers or just steal sales volume away from the entry-level and Super-V market?

Aye.



Loaded V6 is right at $50k so let's say $55K fora LS3 loaded with options? Is it too close to the V in price or the perfect baby V to balance the big dog LSA powered V? Sort of the BMW offerings - a handful of base models and M.


You guys know that the NA small blocks are cheaper to build than the HF v6 right? Price bump is purely based on what the market will bear.

I don't think GM can compete engine for engine, horsepower, and refinement. Notice displacement is always bigger than it's competitors and usually have less output at any rpm. That is why there is no LS3 in up scale GM cars. Same goes for 4 and 6 cylinders. Gm's V6's were so bad they went to Honda for the Saturn VUE to go againist the competition. Pretty sad.

I don't mind playing second fiddle but torque will always rule my world along with more displacement.

Norm

Torque is also important to me but I put more stock in the overall power curve rather than peak values only. For a street-driven car, I'd much rather have an engine with a broad, usable powerband than one with a peaky narrow one. Even if the broad one is rated lower overall.

Torque is also important to me but I put more stock in the overall power curve rather than peak values only. For a street-driven car, I'd much rather have an engine with a broad, usable powerband than one with a peaky narrow one. Even if the broad one is rated lower overall.

Not too many manufacture cars with peaky, unusable torque curves. That is like saying I like cars with wheels!

If you look at the performance data from the magazines GM is not winning acceleration tests as we know the manufacturer and magazines like to report speed/time categories.

It is usually the "lighter car" with the engine matched gearings that wins. Look at CTS vs. Altima in MT a few months back for an example. GM does give bang for the buck roominess and fuel economy.

Norm

I guess I was just trying to say that peak values only tell part of the story. In my mind, I'd rather have an engine with a slightly lower peak but broader, more usable powerband. I'm sure that the LSA is no different than past LSx engines. It could produce far more power if cam'd and tuned for a higher RPM peak. Problem is, you lose bottom and mid-range, and the bottom and mid-range is far more important to me since that's where I spend 90% of my time while driving. If the car was mainly to be used at the track, it would be a different story of course.

In my opinion the HF V6 in the CTS is a world class V6, and the output per liter is excellent for an NA engine in the 300 hp DI model. GM does tend to put out flatter torque curves than much of the competition, reducing peak number bragging rights, but increasing area under the curve.

C63 is faster than an 07 Vette eclipsing the C6 by .2-.3 in both to 60 MPH and 1/4 mile. Don't think the bavarian burner will let up at higher speeds either. The C63 makes 20-30 hp/trq and weighs about 500-600 lbs. Looks like V2 has it's work cut out for it!

For the real kicker....it's MSRP is the same as the Vette @ $54,6XX! Hmmm...decisions, decisions....

Norm

BMW is throwing twin turbos on the V8. The power wars are on full tilt.

Glad the 60s are reborn for another go around before the classic pressures spell their demise.

BMW is throwing twin turbos on the V8. The power wars are on full tilt.

Glad the 60s are reborn for another go around before the classic pressures spell their demise.

$4 gallon gas this summer. It will all be over soon.

$4 gallon gas this summer. It will all be over soon.

People who enjoy driving their cars wont go to slower cars when the gas prices go higher this summer..

At least I know I won't.

JMO

JB

People who enjoy driving their cars wont go to slower cars when the gas prices go higher this summer..

At least I know I won't.

JMO

JB

Me either. I currently average 16mpg.

Averaging less than that.

4 dollars a gallon means I need to work more hours. I will not give up power because the price of gas goes up 50 cents a gal. Now if it hits the $8 like in europe then I might be looking to increase the mileage to say 20 mpg :D

Lucky for me, I really haven't had to actually PAY for gas for over 20 years. Always had a job that gave me free gas! That said, I can see how some may get worked up over a jump in gas prices but unless it jumps a couple bucks a gallon, I just don't see it bothering the enthusiast car owner.

$10/gal used to be my price point but need to rethink it with the Bimmer - 30 mpg @ 80 mph and 35 mpg @ 60 so now the price point is around $15/gal.

with the Bimmer - 30 mpg @ 80 mph and 35 mpg @ 60

Where are my waders? It's getting deep.

2008 BMW 535xi 6 speed manual
16 city 25 highway
19 combined

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

Sure, you can beat the official numbers if you drive it the right way, but not by 10mpg (which equates to a 40% increase in fuel efficiency). Not even the (much lighter, much more efficient) RWD 528i manages to get the numbers that you claim for your comparably piggish AWD 535xi.

$10/gal used to be my price point but need to rethink it with the Bimmer - 30 mpg @ 80 mph and 35 mpg @ 60 so now the price point is around $15/gal.
Forgot to mention downhill following a Semi. :shhh: