: Edmunds Inside Line mini road test of the V2



Greg*
08-25-08, 09:04 PM
Article (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=131106)

Kidhummer
08-25-08, 09:13 PM
They must not be able to drive

MIACTSV
08-25-08, 10:12 PM
What happened to 0-60 in 3.9 sec? 4.6 sec to 60 mph is a big difference from 3.9 sec, STILL FAST but what the hell?

The Tony Show
08-25-08, 10:16 PM
It's Edmunds.com, for crying out loud- they were probably afraid to break the car and *****footed out of the blocks.

Rich H
08-25-08, 10:22 PM
Try looking at the comparisons to the M5. The V beat it in every category - acceleration, braking, slalom - with a MANUAL transmission. Good enough for me.

concorso
08-25-08, 10:31 PM
Edmunds... I dont care if their review is in favor of the V or M5, their opinions hold as much weight as an anorexic on a diet...

Rich H
08-25-08, 10:35 PM
^^^ You can take it or leave it, but until Road & Track get's off their a$$ and publishes some comparison results other than lap times it is better than nothing.

CVP33
08-26-08, 09:54 PM
Whoa. If the 'ring times weren't proof enough, those are some very stout numbers. I was honestly hoping for a little quicker 1/4 mile time though, but 12.5 is still super respectable for a 4 door.

concorso
08-26-08, 10:00 PM
Isnt this in another thread?

Slalom numbers are most impressive, considering it weighs more then the M5.

JEM
08-26-08, 10:05 PM
First Cadillac CTS-V performance test published
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/08/ctsv-tiresmoke.jpg
The CTS-V ran the quarter-mile in a scant 12.5 seconds, besting the 12.7 it takes for either the BMW M5 or the Mercedes E63 AMG.

Bet if you threw 300lb of sand in the trunk it'd be even quicker.

Rich H
08-26-08, 11:03 PM
As long as you don't mention the source of the data (Edmunds :canttalk: ) everyone seems to be a believer. All I care about is that the V bested the M5 in EVERY test category they performed.

SLPR 6.0L
08-26-08, 11:12 PM
What were the trap speeds?

Rich H
08-26-08, 11:57 PM
What were the trap speeds?

The whole article:

MILFORD, Michigan When Inside Line learned it would have access to a 2009 Cadillac CTS-V (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=126926) at GM's Michigan proving grounds, we packed up our portable Racelogic VBOX III testing gear and booked our staff hot-shoe on the next flight to Detroit.

After spending time behind the wheel of Cadillac's powerful new sport sedan, we weren't disappointed. The 2009 Cadillac CTS-V, equipped with a supercharged 556-horsepower 6.2-liter V8 and a six-speed manual transmission, accelerated from zero to 60 mph in 4.6 seconds (4.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and crossed the quarter-mile in 12.5 seconds at 115.3 mph.

That's a faster quarter-mile sprint than either the 500-hp 5.0-liter V10-equipped 2007 BMW M5 (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=119784) or the 507-hp 6.2-liter all-aluminum V8-equipped 2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=120601) achieved. The two German super sedans both took 12.7 seconds to cross the quarter-mile marker and did so with trap speeds of roughly 113 mph.

The Caddy's braking distances and slalom speed were even more impressive. The CTS-V stopped from 60-0 mph in just 109 feet, bettering the M5 by 5 feet and the E63 AMG by 6 feet. The CTS-V also managed to break the 70 mph barrier in the slalom with a best run of 71.1 mph. The BMW M5 ran 68.5 mph, while the E63 only managed 65 mph.

Acceleration:
0-30 mph 2.1 seconds
0-45 mph 3.2 seconds
0-60 mph 4.6 seconds
0-75 mph 6.3 seconds
1/4-mile 12.5 seconds at 115.3 mph
0-60 mph with 1 foot of rollout 4.3 seconds

Braking:
30-0 mph 27 feet
60-0 mph 109 feet

Slalom (600 feet) 71.1 mph

Skid pad lateral acceleration (200 feet) 0.92g

What this means to you: GM product head Bob Lutz promised that this CTS-V would put the M5 on the trailer. According to our test numbers, he's right. Kelly Toepke, News Editor

NormV
08-27-08, 11:39 AM
I'd run one with 05 CTS-V. :)


Norm

concorso
08-27-08, 10:22 PM
I'd run one with 05 CTS-V. :)


Norm

I'ma guess youve been maggied?

StealthCTSVJJL
08-28-08, 12:25 PM
Edmunds performance times have been slower than the rest of the magazines, heres their quote from the 2004 CTS-V:
"As you might expect, the lethal combination of LS6 power and a six-speed gearbox translates into impressive numbers at the test track. Our quickest 0-to-60 run came in at 5.1 seconds, while the fastest run through the quarter-mile took just 13.5 seconds at 107 mph. Not exactly Z06 numbers, but with an extra 734 pounds onboard we didn't expect the CTS-V to do the impossible."
So 4.3 which is their time with the dragstrip rollout which C&D, MT and R&T use should turn out about 4.0 secs maybe less. I do think it will be hard for the V2 to post a 12 sec flat QM, 12.2-12.3 sounds more logical. We will soon find out.

rand49er
08-29-08, 08:20 AM
...
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/08/ctsv-tiresmoke.jpg
...Back in May at Summit Point at the end of the day, we watched first the automatic V2 then the manual V2 do this.

Except for the color of the car, this is precisely what it looked like.

My video camera was on its mount in the car. :banghead:

atdeneve
08-29-08, 12:12 PM
I thought both burnouts were just the automatic?

NormV
08-29-08, 09:59 PM
I'ma guess youve been maggied?

Just power to weight ratio. Along with higher friction tires and higher rolling resistance. My car weighs just above 3600 lbs where the V2 weighs 4300 lbs. I'd need 467 hp to match ratios.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0811_2009_cadillac_cts-v_first_test/specs.html

Norm

concorso
09-05-08, 09:29 PM
Just power to weight ratio. Along with higher friction tires and higher rolling resistance. My car weighs just above 3600 lbs where the V2 weighs 4300 lbs. I'd need 467 hp to match ratios.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0811_2009_cadillac_cts-v_first_test/specs.html

Norm 467? That would be hard to achieve, hey? Have oyu weighed that car at 3600? I understood that the V was over 3800 lbs without driver? I thought even the V6 CTS was 3600+ I remember Road and Track weighing the Sport CTS at 3800+...

NormV
09-06-08, 12:11 AM
It was 3763 lbs with 2/3 tank of fuel. That is without sun roof. Scale was at Roebling Road race track with corner weighting. This was before Momo seat intall and 8 lbs lighter wheels. There was allot of unsprung weight and mass that was removed. I picked one mpg with those two mods. Along with headers and a tune makes the pretty quick.

Norm


467? That would be hard to achieve, hey? Have oyu weighed that car at 3600? I understood that the V was over 3800 lbs without driver? I thought even the V6 CTS was 3600+ I remember Road and Track weighing the Sport CTS at 3800+...