: Road and Track: First Drive 09 CTS-V



lusterblade
09-26-08, 01:08 PM
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=7113



First Drive: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V
With the heart of the ZR1 Vette, this Caddy's acceleration is pulse-quickening.
By Shaun Bailey

Monticello, New York I'm back at the Monticello Motor Club, but this time I'm driving the new second-generation Cadillac CTS-V and not just watching John Heinricy chase down Bill Auberlen in a BMW M5 as reported in our October issue's "King for a Day." So, we already know the V can more than keep pace with the M5, and I can now confirm that the speed comes with a refinement and driving pleasure that are competitive with other sporting sedans.

Upping the ante is 556 bhp from a 6.2-liter supercharged V-8. Power peaks at 6100 rpm, just below the engine's peak speed of 6200. A staggering 551 lb.-ft. of torque is available at 3800 rpm. It's hard to resist the urge to generate billowing smoke clouds as it does this willingly and with ease. Gone are the trembling shift lever and hopping rear end of the first generation. The V is steady as a rock, thanks to the use of Magnetic Ride Control (MRC) shock absorbers and the efforts of Heinricy's team in fine-tuning the chassis.

From the most important seat an optional leather Recaro with adjustable bolstering I found the thick steering wheel and pedals to be placed appropriately for precision driving, an optional Alcantara package adding to the sporting feel. Most of the interior is from the CTS, but there are some detail differences. An important one is the lack of a mechanical parking brake, replaced by an electronic one, thus freeing up some foot space for a better-located dead pedal. I particularly like the piano black interior trim.

The gauges on the CTS-V are noticeably different. Red tracers follow the sweeping needles and add a technical sophistication. Other gauges include a multi-function display and boost gauge. To be honest, the speedometer in this car is pointless; it should just be a sticker that says "You're speeding." It's hard not to, as the car doesn't struggle to go fast. This feeling of ease is heightened by a light yet quick steering feel. A quick double-tap of the TC (traction control) button located on the steering wheel fixes that. Not only does that set the car in Competition mode, decreasing the stability-control restrictions, but also changes the amount of steering assistance.

For real fun, though, press and hold the traction control button to disable the entire system. Then select the Sport mode of the MRC system. That's what I did recently at the Milford proving grounds in both 6-speed manual and 6-speed automatic versions. At the test track I used up some of the custom Michelin Pilot Sport tires and performed instrumented testing. Both test cars were equipped with the optional brake package that simply swaps out front rotors and adds red paint to the Brembo calipers.

The Tremec TR6060 manual transmission handles power shifting with ease, which is good as the V is equipped with a no-lift shift feature. When near redline, the engine will hold boost for 1 second while the throttle is kept pressed to the floor. The exercise of power-shifting can be addictive. The automatic doesn't have the same insatiable desire to shred tires, but it offers an enjoyable experience nonetheless with quick upshifts and rev-matched downshifts that can be controlled by paddles on the steering wheel.

After my drive, it's clear that the CTS-V has come of age. No longer a harsh beast, the V can compete with the best in both performance numbers and subjective refinement. Price hasn't been announced, but if Cadillac can offer a sub-$70,000 MSRP, there will be a lot of happy buyers regardless of what the competition does in the future, or even if the price of fuel doubles.

2009 Cadillac CTS-V Manual/Automatic
List price
est $64,000
Price as tested
est $68,000
Curb weight
est 4290/4280 lb
Engine, transmission
6.2-liter supercharged V-8; 6-sp manual/6-sp automatic
Horsepower, bhp @ rpm
556 @ 6100
Torque, lb-ft @ rpm
551 @ 3800
060 mph
4.1/3.9 sec
0100 mph
9.5/9.2 sec
01320 ft (1/4 mile)
12.4 sec @ 115.9 mph/12.2 sec @ 116.1 mph
Top speed
191/175 mph*
Braking, 600 mph
117 ft
Braking, 800 mph
197 ft
Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad)
0.91g
Speed thru 700-ft slalom
69.7 mph
Our mileage, EPA city/highway
est 11.0, est 10/16 mpg

jasaero
09-26-08, 02:17 PM
Well there's the 3.9 0-60 for everyone. From the Auto anyhow. 12.2s in the Quarter is also getting right near the 12.0 promise. Seems very likely with the right conditions at an actual drag strip it could get under 12s in 100% stock form. That's pretty amazing! Also seems braking, lateral g's, and slalom are all better than any R&T M5 test I can find. To me, that's blowing it's doors off. Seems to very conisistently out do the M5 or M6(which should be a bit quicker) in every test I can find comparing same sources.

330toSRT8
09-26-08, 11:42 PM
Good info. I've been waiting for some actual test data from one of the major mags.

Silverspeed
09-26-08, 11:51 PM
According to that article the manual is heavier than the auto. It also states that the auto has a faster 0-60, Quater mile, trap speed, and 0-100. It makes me question the accuracy of the entire thing as there is no way the manual is heavier than the auto.

SLPR 6.0L
09-27-08, 01:44 AM
According to that article the manual is heavier than the auto. It also states that the auto has a faster 0-60, Quater mile, trap speed, and 0-100. It makes me question the accuracy of the entire thing as there is no way the manual is heavier than the auto.

I would also think that it would get much better EPA mpg. Regardless, I cant wait to get one with a manual.

HPCC
09-27-08, 06:27 AM
According to that article the manual is heavier than the auto. It also states that the auto has a faster 0-60, Quater mile, trap speed, and 0-100. It makes me question the accuracy of the entire thing as there is no way the manual is heavier than the auto.Yeah, I think the weight thing with the auto is a typo; however, I've read on numerous occasions that the auto is indeed slightly quicker than the manual, while the manual is faster since the auto is artificially governed to protect the tranny.

BigFred
09-27-08, 11:44 PM
Maybe it shouldn't matter, but I'm relieved to see the 3.9 time. I was tired of thinking GM was full of it. Pics are of the fastest color, so that must have been it.

HPCC
09-28-08, 02:26 AM
My favorite line in the article: "To be honest, the speedometer in this car is pointless; it should just be a sticker that says "You're speeding."" :D

Seattle CTS-V
09-28-08, 04:01 AM
Trap speeds seem awefully slow to me. My maggied 2.6" pullied V was pulling 119mph traps with about the same power. Wonder if it's the gearing??

atdeneve
09-28-08, 08:54 AM
Yeah, trap speeds were really low in this review.

But there were also other tests that showed trap speeds breaking 120 (121 or 122), so that's pretty positive...

verbs
09-28-08, 05:01 PM
Trap speeds seem awefully slow to me. My maggied 2.6" pullied V was pulling 119mph traps with about the same power. Wonder if it's the gearing??
Your maggied CTS-V was about 300-400lbs lighter than the V2. There's your trap speed difference.