: Edmunds: loaded $67,540 plus gas guzzler



g50
10-17-08, 09:36 PM
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=133893

coolcaddy1
10-17-08, 09:48 PM
little higher than I had hoped for but a good value in my opinion. Hmm if an 06 V is going for 32k now and list was 52k will an 09 V go for 40k in 2012? :highfive:

1fstkde
10-17-08, 10:05 PM
sign me up!!!:thumbsup:

Knuguy
10-17-08, 11:03 PM
13mpg city and 19 highway inline with a maggied V1, actually seems a bit worse

Jayrcr3
10-17-08, 11:15 PM
13mpg city and 19 highway inline with a maggied V1, actually seems a bit worse

Its making more power than a maggied V. Unless you've done more than just the maggie. So a little worse is probably about right. Its faster than a blown V1 also.

I hope in 2012 it 40k. That's the only way this guy will ever be able to afford one.

thebigjimsho
10-17-08, 11:32 PM
Inside Line says: It's admirable that Cadillac kept the starting price of the new CTS-V under $60K, so incentives appear unlikely. Anita Lienert, Correspondent
Well, I think our economy will also decide incentives. Since I'm buying mine as a program or lightly used V, I'm not concerned...

JEM
10-18-08, 05:14 AM
So full-boat it's still going out the door for less than I paid for my M5 almost nine years ago.

I'm gonna have to give this a thought, though three other car projects ongoing, a pared-back work schedule to play Mr Mom, and recent market tankage mean that thought's going to take just a bit longer than I'd like.

And if $65K for the V isn't going to do it for you...by accident I ended up driving a Cobalt SS sedan a couple weeks ago. Okay, crappy hard-plastic upper dash. But a spectacularly nice driver, great seats, beautifully matched control weighting, maybe not quite as nicely trimmed as a Mazdaspeed3 but both a more comfortable drive and a better-balanced one. Shame it's not a hatchback...

tweeter81
10-18-08, 03:38 PM
Its making more power than a maggied V. Unless you've done more than just the maggie. So a little worse is probably about right. Its faster than a blown V1 also.

I hope in 2012 it 40k. That's the only way this guy will ever be able to afford one.

Sorry to threadjack, but your first statement doesn't seem right to me. If you do the math this is how it shakes out. (I'm all about the power to weight ratios)

2009 CTS-V = 556 hp \ 4292 lbs = 7.719 lbs that each horse is moving

2004 CTS-V (Maggied) = 540 hp \ 3920 lbs = 7.259 lbs that each horse is moving

See that the weight was 3850 lbs + 70 lbs for Maggie = 3920 lbs

Now, the new V has redesigned suspension for much better launches, so I would agree that you might run slightly better 1/4 miles times. But, the number that most of us on this forum care about is the road course lap times and I bet most Maggied V1s would edge out a stock V2 on the road course. (16-20 more hp for the V2, but 372 more lbs mean that it will be close to a modified V) I may get proven wrong when the V2s start hitting the streets and road courses against V1s, but I don't think so. :stirpot:

About your second point, I do agree that the depreciation should be about what you think based on the V1's depreciation.

CIWS
10-18-08, 05:15 PM
What's this, fully loaded between 65-70K + gas guzzler tax ? Where have I been hearing this for the last 8 months ?:sneaky:

thebigjimsho
10-18-08, 05:31 PM
Sorry to threadjack, but your first statement doesn't seem right to me. If you do the math this is how it shakes out. (I'm all about the power to weight ratios)

2009 CTS-V = 556 hp 4292 lbs = 7.719 lbs that each horse is moving

2004 CTS-V (Maggied) = 540 hp 3920 lbs = 7.259 lbs that each horse is moving

See that the weight was 3850 lbs + 70 lbs for Maggie = 3920 lbs

Now, the new V has redesigned suspension for much better launches, so I would agree that you might run slightly better 1/4 miles times. But, the number that most of us on this forum care about is the road course lap times and I bet most Maggied V1s would edge out a stock V2 on the road course. (16-20 more hp for the V2, but 372 more lbs mean that it will be close to a modified V) I may get proven wrong when the V2s start hitting the streets and road courses against V1s, but I don't think so. :stirpot:

About your second point, I do agree that the depreciation should be about what you think based on the V1's depreciation."Unless you've done more than just the Maggie" was what was said. I'm sorry, you do not get 140hp by just slapping in a Maggie...

jashearer
10-18-08, 08:28 PM
"Unless you've done more than just the Maggie" was what was said. I'm sorry, you do not get 140hp by just slapping in a Maggie...

I'm pretty sure that crank horse should be about that 540 as he implied.

Assuming 15% drivetrain loss thats about 459 to the wheels, which doesn't seem out of the ordinary.

Jay

jashearer
10-18-08, 08:34 PM
So loaded w/ gas guzzler will be right about $70k or maybe a hair over?

Jay

thebigjimsho
10-18-08, 08:51 PM
I'm pretty sure that crank horse should be about that 540 as he implied.

Assuming 15% drivetrain loss thats about 459 to the wheels, which doesn't seem out of the ordinary.

JayYou guys can discuss power to weight between a stock V2 and modded V1 all you want. But you do not get 540 crank hp by slapping a Maggie on a V1.

CIWS
10-19-08, 10:21 AM
Assuming one uses the same % for a drivetrain loss calculation, the more BHP a vehicle has, the greater the net loss will be. So it's possible that even though one car is rated at a greater BHP than another, once loss is calculated they could end up much closer in RWHP. Then of course one would factor in vehicle weight.


I'm going to bet that just like on the STS-V, GM has made an effort to reduce the whine of the S/C on the 09V by restricting the diameter of the air intake tube. If one puts a larger diameter intake on the car they will not only gain my HP, but hear the whine of the S/C being more distinct.