: Car and Driver - 2009 Cadillac CTS-V Road Test



jasaero
09-02-08, 07:32 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2009_cadillac_cts_v_road_test


Built upon an evolution of the same Sigma architecture as the original, the CTS-V rides on the same 113.4-inch wheelbase but is fractionally larger in track, width, and length. Despite a couple of weight-saving measures—an aluminum hood and forged aluminum wheels—curb weight is up by a considerable 385 pounds, to a grand total of 4292 for our giant-sunroof-equipped, fully loaded manual-transmission test vehicle. (Fun fact: That’s a mere 109 pounds lighter than the Toyota Highlander in this issue’s SUV comparo.) And yet, like the nearly 4000-pound Nissan GT-R, the Cadillac somehow suspends the laws of gravity.

A big part of the Newtonian bitch slap is the 556-hp, supercharged 6.2-liter V-8. Dubbed LSA, the Caddy engine could be considered a slightly detuned version of the ZR1’s 638-hp LS9, but its titanium-free valvetrain and connecting rods and its conventional wet-sump oil system actually make it more akin to a supercharged version of the standard Corvette 6.2-liter.

HiTechRV
09-02-08, 09:27 PM
That's the perfect response for all the old "It's too heavy" crap that was running around - "Newtonian bitch slap". I'm loving it.

terminal Velocity
09-02-08, 10:22 PM
Hmmm, they got 4.3 in a manual version and 4.0 in an auto...

v84life
09-03-08, 12:10 AM
I'm not liking the fact that there is no 3.9 yet and no where close to 12 flat in the quarter. Am I missing something..... What makes me mad is that this article shows the M5 and the M3 are capable of better times oh and I forgot the AMG..... This is still a puzzle can someone please solve it....:hide:

Not saying the new V isn't a kick ass car but it doesn't seem to suck any doors off yet. Hope there is more comparison tests done real soon....

jasaero
09-03-08, 12:20 AM
All runs were done on similar days. Chances are it was pretty hot every day they had people out on that track. Until people get the cars in hand and can run them at cooler times of day on sticky test strips and such where all conditions are optimal you won't be getting the best times. Chances are the C&D tests were weakest because they tend to find the best times and conditions possible before they put their numbers in stone on their data charts. They may get a few tenths off the CTS-V when they get a production car for more extensive testing.

EricVonHa
09-03-08, 12:42 AM
Hmmm, they got 4.3 in a manual version and 4.0 in an auto...

Take a look at the trans and rear end ratios for the auto vs. the manual. The automatic trans has a much steeper (numerically) ratio that when multiplied by the rear end ratio-- yields a higher final drive number. Which, then translates into quicker off-the-line launches. If the wheels hold traction, on paper, the auto looks like the best street warrior setup.

Or, you could just change the manual trans car to have a higher rear end ratio ;)

FrgMstr
09-03-08, 01:07 PM
I'm not liking the fact that there is no 3.9 yet and no where close to 12 flat in the quarter. Am I missing something..... What makes me mad is that this article shows the M5 and the M3 are capable of better times oh and I forgot the AMG..... This is still a puzzle can someone please solve it....:hide:

Not saying the new V isn't a kick ass car but it doesn't seem to suck any doors off yet. Hope there is more comparison tests done real soon....


For all you "suck the doors off" people out there, what were you truly expecting...exactly? Please let me know, because you guys responding to marketing generalities with your own nonspecific generalities has got me confused. :helpless: Please tell me exactly what you wanted?? Because I think that will allow us to at least laugh at you for thinking that.

terminal Velocity
09-03-08, 03:47 PM
Everyone should stop and STFU. Bench racing on cars that aren't for sale yet, and getting vicious about it, is stupid.

Silverspeed
09-03-08, 04:45 PM
Like I said, it's a drivers race against an M5 even in a straight line. As a matter of fact, per Car and Driver, the V2 loses. 12.6 at 116 is no M5 beater, and is not sucking the doors off of anything. Well, that's all the rags, and the best 1/4 mile posted is 12.3. Not a single 3.9 and not a single 12.0 Not even CLOSE to a 12.0 for that matter.

I am sure I will recieve alot of flaming for this post, but I really don't care. All this freaking hype, inflated claims, and "sucking the doors off" = BS. Flame away......

By the way, this is from the same rag that beat a 0-60 of 4.1 seconds out of an M3 with 290 ft./lbs of torque, which I still to this day will not EVER believe is possible. Not with out an 8000 RPM clutch grenading launch.

v84life
09-03-08, 04:47 PM
For all you "suck the doors off" people out there, what were you truly expecting...exactly? Please let me know, because you guys responding to marketing generalities with your own nonspecific generalities has got me confused. :helpless: Please tell me exactly what you wanted?? Because I think that will allow us to at least laugh at you for thinking that.

Easy there bro. What is so confusing? Cadillac gave the stats 0-60 in 3.9sec quarter mile in 12flat. Simple I was expecting a clear winner not close. Just as the press release has stated as well as Mr. Lutz.... Thats all. Why do I want this. Because I'm a GM car faithful and for once I was hoping for over deliver not typical under deliver.... This wont keep me from buying the car just a little perplexing...

After sleeping on it last night I might have found the answer to the puzzle.. No one that has tested the car thus far has mentioned launch control. This was supposed to be on later released cars...:confused: Maybe Cadillac Tony can shed some light...
One more thing my wording was not quite correct. This did not make me mad like I said in my first post more like bummed , thats all...

CIWS
09-03-08, 04:56 PM
I am sure I will recieve alot of flaming for this post, but I really don't care. All this freaking hype, inflated claims, and "sucking the doors off" = BS. Flame away......

Ok, but remember, you asked for it.


http://www.ciws.net/smiles/flameit.gif

Jpjr
09-03-08, 07:44 PM
That's the perfect response for all the old "It's too heavy" crap that was running around - "Newtonian bitch slap". I'm loving it.

But... it is too heavy. It weighs as much as a Toyota Highlander.

HiTechRV
09-03-08, 08:41 PM
It yet bitch-slaps the ring LOL. Apparently not too heavy to set the world record performance for a sedan. It's not to heavy to obliterate lighter sports cars in all aspects of performance. It's not too heavy to go fast, maybe it's too heavy to go slow???