: New article for 09 CTS V.... funny numbers?



csp3000
10-01-08, 02:39 PM
Just got the new Automobile mag for Nov and there is an article on the 09 CTS V with a road test.

6sp manual 4.5 to 60 and 12.8@117 (12.8@117)
6sp auto 4.4 to 60 and 12.7@116 (12.7@116)

These number are way off the ones from GM...:hmm:

The Tony Show
10-01-08, 02:43 PM
Somebody can't drive. These numbers not only conflict with GM's, but also every other mag and web site that has tested it. Car and Driver got a 3.9 in the Auto, so it's definitely driver error. They probably weren't using the No-Lift shift in the Manual or the sport shift mode in the Auto.

:doh:

csp3000
10-01-08, 02:44 PM
Somebody can't drive. These numbers not only conflict with GM's, but also every other mag and web site that has tested it. Car and Driver got a 3.9 in the Auto, so it's definitely driver error. They probably weren't using the No-Lift shift in the Manual or the sport shift mode in the Auto.

:doh:

Thanks Tony, I figure there had to be some kind of answer for those numbers because they are way off...

atdeneve
10-01-08, 03:28 PM
Those numbers are pretty bad, but it's not necessarily way off from other test numbers. There were earlier tests with 4.1 to 4.3 0-60 times.

As for no-lift shifting in the manual times, that's an interesting point. Would it be necessary to use the no-lift shift to make those times? Cuz I certainly don't wanna be no-lift shifting with any sort of regularity, even if I am driving aggressively. I wonder how much no-lift shifting the power train can take, especially in the lower gears. And would it be considered driver abuse? I guess we'll see soon enough.

Cadillac Tony
10-01-08, 03:42 PM
The No-Lift shifting will definitely not be considered abuse- it's a feature of the car that will be explained in the owner's manual.

To incredibly over simplify it, the computer basically uses the Electronic throttle to prevent over-revving when you press the clutch in at high RPMs. By closing it most of the way, the RPMs will hold steady (and even drop slightly) even though you still have the gas pedal boarded. When you engage the next gear and lift the clutch pedal, the computer will return the throttle butterfly to its proper position, basically simulating the act of lifting your foot off the gas and reapplying it.

The theory behind it is that the end result will actually be faster, as well as less stressful on the powertrain than the driver manually working the throttle between shifts.

atdeneve
10-01-08, 03:53 PM
Awesome!

When I asked the testers/engineers they explained it a bit differently. Sorta more pertaining to the supercharger. They said it had to do with the supercharger maintaining boost, rather than having the valve release the pressure, only to have to build it back up again. So, you could effectively keep your foot mashed on the pedal in between shifts.

Of course, my immediate question was, "Well, isn't that bad for the transmission?" They were kinda like, "Yea, but..." I wasn't really sure what to make of that. Didn't really make sense to me. I'm guessing they didn't really know what they were sayin? Shrug. I hope so.

Cadillac Tony
10-01-08, 04:30 PM
It's no CTS-V, but the new Cobalt SS has been putting up some shocking numbers in recent tests (including the Lightning Lap linked to here in a different thread). Part of the secret? No lift shifting.

Check out the 1:00 minute mark:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=urwJVnWHjiI

atdeneve
10-01-08, 05:16 PM
urwJVnWHjiI

atdeneve
10-01-08, 05:40 PM
Haha, make sure to check out the graph-eedee!

Actually, the garage419 video of the Monticello run with Heinricy has some great no-lift shifting (the missed shift is fun, too). He does a super fast 4-5 no-lift shift.

Compare Heinricy's lap: http://www.garage419.com/episode/419_20080925 to this guy's: http://www.motivemag.com/video/2008/CTSV/Cadillac_CTSV_First_Drive_1.mov.

Heinricy goes flat out through turn 1 (right hand kink after the long straight). The other dude lets off - Boo, no balls. He goes deeper into turns and seems much more smoother. Damn near looks like he's out for a pleasant Sunday drive. He's good.

Jpjr
10-01-08, 07:23 PM
Somebody can't drive. These numbers not only conflict with GM's, but also every other mag and web site that has tested it. Car and Driver got a 3.9 in the Auto, so it's definitely driver error. They probably weren't using the No-Lift shift in the Manual or the sport shift mode in the Auto.

:doh:

C&D has 3.9 and so does R&T, but two mags with exactly the same time as GM seems to indicate that they are using GM's time and didn't actually run that themselves. I could be wrong but that seems very strange... different drivers... different cars... possibly different conditions...etc.

atdeneve
10-01-08, 09:01 PM
The latest Nov C&D has the manual pegged at 4.3 sec with a quarter mile of 12.6 @ 116. Both pretty dismal, relatively speaking. So we're seeing a whole lot of variation.

justboughtacaddy
10-01-08, 09:09 PM
Why is there a $2000.00 rebate on the 2009 cts-v with no pricing realease yet besides $59,025??

justboughtacaddy
10-01-08, 09:13 PM
Forgot to mention that my previous numbers can be found on Cadillac website
and the region for the rebate is western.

HPCC
10-02-08, 03:23 AM
...the garage419 video of the Monticello run with Heinricy has some great no-lift shifting (the missed shift is fun, too). He does a super fast 4-5 no-lift shift...http://www.garage419.com/episode/419_20080925 to this guy's: http://www.motivemag.com/video/2008/CTSV/Cadillac_CTSV_First_Drive_1.mov.

Heinricy goes flat out through turn 1 (right hand kink after the long straight). The other dude lets off - Boo, no balls. He goes deeper into turns and seems much more smoother. Damn near looks like he's out for a pleasant Sunday drive. He's good.No doubt--and shows he human too! His championships speak for themselves.

400 lb-ft at idle?! Wow, is that true? That would be more than the M5 makes at its peak! What a beast! :2thumbs:

BigFred
10-04-08, 03:04 PM
Don't worry about Automobile mag test numbers, they are always much slower than R&T, C&D, and MT. The review was by their socialist/communist writer Jamie Kitman. Maybe he had something to do with it. ;) Overall, a pretty good review. I get more excited by the day.

Jpjr
10-04-08, 03:56 PM
Don't worry about Automobile mag test numbers, they are always much slower than R&T, C&D, and MT. The review was by their socialist/communist writer Jamie Kitman. Maybe he had something to do with it. ;) Overall, a pretty good review. I get more excited by the day.

This post made my day. You don't like the testing results, so you accuse the writer of being a communist. This is what web boards are all about :)

b4z
10-04-08, 06:21 PM
Does Autombilemag do instrumented testing?
I thought that was part of their original statement going back to 1986 when the mag was founded. No instrumented testing just manufacturer's estimates.

Jpjr
10-04-08, 06:31 PM
Does Autombilemag do instrumented testing?
I thought that was part of their original statement going back to 1986 when the mag was founded. No instrumented testing just manufacturer's estimates.


I almost positive that any car magazine stating a 0-60 of 3.9 is using GM's numbers and not tested numbers.

Cadillac Tony
10-04-08, 07:46 PM
Why is there a $2000.00 rebate on the 2009 cts-v with no pricing realease yet besides $59,025??


Forgot to mention that my previous numbers can be found on Cadillac website
and the region for the rebate is western.

As I told you in the other thread, there is no rebate on the CTS-V, nor has pricing been announced yet. If you notice, the rebate on Cadillac.com is very clearly marked "CTS 3.6L V6". The V is neither a 3.6L or a V6, so the rebate does not apply.

StealthCTSVJJL
10-04-08, 10:16 PM
Just read C&D's November test, and it certainly appears that the manual V is slower than the SMG M5 they tested on January 06 that did 4.2 0-60 and a 12.5 QM at 118. They did say the automatic version did a 4.0, perhaps this one can deliver the goods, but it is clear that the V2 will not "suck the doors off the M5" as Mr. Lutz said. Handling looks to be much better than the M5, as the latest comparo in C&D shows, which in my book still makes the V very attractive, plus I think there might be more mod potential for the V than the M5.

BigFred
10-06-08, 01:24 AM
This post made my day. You don't like the testing results, so you accuse the writer of being a communist. This is what web boards are all about :)

That is why the knowing wink is there. Being a commie has nothing to do with the slow times. I call Kitman a commie based on his columns; and if you read the letters to the editor that are published in the magazine, so do many others.

I don't know if Automobile does their own testing or not, but their numbers aren't factory numbers.

Car and Driver most of the time and Road & Track occasionally have pretty fast times. The times aren't manufacturer supplied because the 1/4 mile numbers don't match.

SRT8/BMW
10-06-08, 07:40 AM
well if it makes anyone feel better-I personally witnessed 12.2@121 for the manual and 12.3@121 for the auto at Milan dragway a few weeks back..

I also posted a vid of the CTS-V running next to me (at my request) in my 335xi. It was the auto and on that pass ran 12.4 @119 with a 1.95 60 ft--besting my 12.7

atdeneve
10-06-08, 10:10 AM
Those are certainly impressive trap speeds.

Were they running the manual, as well? Do you know the times / trap speeds it pulled?