: Motorweek 2009 CTS-V Road Test



readyact
12-06-08, 08:10 PM
For those interested Motorweek's featured road test car this week is the 2009 CTS-V. Check your local PBS listings for air times. Here's a write up regarding the road test:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2814a.shtml

V-Love
12-07-08, 06:23 AM
Even if I've heard it all before, its nice to read everyone hype it.

Razorecko
12-07-08, 09:47 AM
wow. I'm really disappointed with the times. Something is wrong. My Jeep srt8 w/ a cold air intake and exhaust is a high 12's vehicle also but it weights 4700lbs w/ a 6.1L 420hp. Not too mention it does 0-60 in about 4.5 so even the 60mph time is better. Something is up....This vehicle should be a high 3sec car running low 12's. I'm disappointed especially since gm stated their performance numbers and they are MUCH BETTER.

jasaero
12-07-08, 10:26 AM
wow. I'm really disappointed with the times. Something is wrong. My Jeep srt8 w/ a cold air intake and exhaust is a high 12's vehicle also but it weights 4700lbs w/ a 6.1L 420hp. Not too mention it does 0-60 in about 4.5 so even the 60mph time is better. Something is up....This vehicle should be a high 3sec car running low 12's. I'm disappointed especially since gm stated their performance numbers and they are MUCH BETTER.

This is Motorweek. High performance vehicles aren't really their strong suit.

Razorecko
12-07-08, 10:45 AM
This is Motorweek. High performance vehicles aren't really their strong suit.

Gm stated that the cts-v goes 0-60 in 3.9 and the 1/4 in 12sec flat. I havent seen even one of several magazines or tests produce anywhere near that number. Now maybe this is a motor that really wakes up after being broken in but so far i'm disappointed that my 130hp less and 500lbs heavier suv is running similar times.

tweeter81
12-07-08, 11:24 AM
Well...let's see.

Jeep SRT8 = All-wheel drive

2009 CTS-V = Not all-wheel drive

This is like comparing apples to oranges. I really think the SRT8s are cool, hell I almost bought one 9 months ago, but you are taking the Jeeps best quality (neck-snapping acceleration) and basically comparing it to the worst quality of the V. The V was clearly set up for road racing, not drag racing.

I'll throw out another comparison. How would the Jeep hold up to the V from 100 MPH to 191 MPH? I would be willing to say...not very good. Or would the Jeep lap the Nurburgring in under 8 minutes...probably not.

Either way, they are both cool rides, you just have to keep certain performance characteristics of each vehicle in perspective.

Razorecko
12-07-08, 12:24 PM
^ my point is if gm stated the 0-60mph being 3.9 and nobody in the mags is managing to pull better than a 4.2/4.3. My issue is that if they're going to post such great numbers i'd like to see the proof. I'm sure most owners wouldnt be able to pull those times but it would be good to know if they are even possible or not.

tweeter81
12-07-08, 12:44 PM
I agree with that. I don't know how the car companies determine their performance numbers, but sometimes it seems like they put a professional racecar driver in the car and whatever the best time he runs is the number that they claim. I hope that is not the case. They need to have the times be repeatable so that regular people on the street can match the times.

One thing to think about could be that GM's performance testing was at sea level or a very low elevation and some of the others may have been at higher elevations.

HPCC
12-07-08, 04:26 PM
Roll-out?

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=108791


The first time we tested the STS-V, we recorded a best run of 5.1 seconds. So we called the guys at GM to tell them their car doesn't accelerate from 0-60 mph in less than 5 seconds. Figuring there must be something wrong with the car, General Motors sent a powertrain engineer from Detroit to check it out. The car was fine. But he did notice we didn't use any roll-out in our acceleration tests, which GM and many car magazines do.

Roll-out essentially gives the car 12 inches of movement before you start the clocks. You know, a head start. So we humored the guy, recalculated our radar gun and made a few more runs. Sure enough, with 12 inches of roll-out, the car's best 0-60-mph run was 4.9 seconds. Too bad we don't test with roll-out. Our 0-60-mph test starts at zero mph. So our official 0-60-mph time for the STS-V is 5.1 seconds.Maybe more magazines are feeling the heat from readers calling BS and stopped testing with roll-out. But 7-tenths seems like an eternity in the quarter, roll-out or no roll-out; it's like a 100 feet at 100 MPH--a complete blow-away...

The Tony Show
12-07-08, 04:45 PM
Gm stated that the cts-v goes 0-60 in 3.9 and the 1/4 in 12sec flat. I havent seen even one of several magazines or tests produce anywhere near that number.

You must not read a lot of magazines:

Motor Trend- 4.1 and 12.3 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0811_2009_cadillac_cts-v_first_test/specs.html)

Car and Driver 4.0 and 12.6 (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2009_cadillac_cts_v_road_test+t-speed_and_stopping_ability+page-2.html)

Those are the two big boys (as far as car rags go), and we've been discussing the articles for weeks now. Variances due to driver and location will occur, but to say that "not one magazine has even come close" is ridiculous.

HPCC
12-07-08, 05:18 PM
^ ...and at least back in 2005, C&D implied they did factor in roll-out: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/the_importance_of_rollout_feature

As mentioned elsewhere in the forum, C&D has flatly stated their testing procedure prohibits taking advantage of the no-lift feature, hence the .3 advantage they produced with the auto over the manual--however, several months ago, Popular Mechanics mentioned that in a side-by-side drag race at the post-'Ring Milford demos, the auto walked away from the manual. I would assume GM drivers would've been employing no-lift...:stirpot:

jasaero
12-07-08, 07:07 PM
Gm stated that the cts-v goes 0-60 in 3.9 and the 1/4 in 12sec flat. I havent seen even one of several magazines or tests produce anywhere near that number. Now maybe this is a motor that really wakes up after being broken in but so far i'm disappointed that my 130hp less and 500lbs heavier suv is running similar times.

12.2 in the quarter and and 3.9 0-60 seem pretty darned close to the promise in my opinion?? Not to mention the times The Tony Show mentioned from the other big mags.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=7113

Razorecko
12-07-08, 08:23 PM
^ my mistake than, as thats a new article I haven't seen yet. Most of the mags that did pre-production testing ( before buyers got their hands on them ) ran the times i posted......wait those times are the exact times that gm released...you sure they didnt just copy that info from them ?

JEM
12-07-08, 09:50 PM
Ohferchrissake. Anything with as much power as a CTS-V is grossly traction-limited off the line. 0-60 is a low-speed metric, with this much power it's purely a measure of off-the-line traction.

The E55 and E63 wagons always turn in quicker 0-60 times than the sedans, 'cause they've got an extra couple hundred pounds of butt to keep the tires planted.

If you care about power, you're looking at 0-150 times, or distance-to-speed numbers for 100, 150mph.

jasaero
12-07-08, 10:14 PM
^ my mistake than, as thats a new article I haven't seen yet. Most of the mags that did pre-production testing ( before buyers got their hands on them ) ran the times i posted......wait those times are the exact times that gm released...you sure they didnt just copy that info from them ?

They tested it and it has data on stopping distance and slalom that isn't provided by Caddy. Also have different times for Auto and Manual that Caddy never provided. Cadillac's times HAVE been duplicated and it happened about a month ago now! Period, End of Story!

SRT8/BMW
12-08-08, 10:15 AM
well I was fortunate enough to personally witness the 1/4 times at Milan dragway when the Caddy folks were out there with Motor Trend testing.

They were getting 12.2-12.3 at 119-121 MPH!!!! and that was with both the manual (which if I recall actually got the lowere of the two that day) and the Auto, and as a previous poster said--this was with "feathered" launches and 60 ft. times in the 1.95-1.98 range.

I actually posted a vid in this forum of that day--ans they obliged me with a run against my BMW since I told them I had a V on order.

Also-- I spoke with the head engineer for the V car/project- Mr. Berube, at Monticello. He told me that they actually get even better times on street pavement versus track pavement due to better traction, and..they have tried it on Drag Radials. He said "lets just say mid 11s are not a problem." :stirpot:

odla
12-08-08, 11:10 AM
can you post a link to that video please? thanks

SRT8/BMW
12-08-08, 11:22 AM
can you post a link to that video please? thanks


HERE YOU GO



http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/149518-vids-09-cts-v-track.html

gothicaleigh
12-08-08, 05:59 PM
Gm stated that the cts-v goes 0-60 in 3.9 and the 1/4 in 12sec flat. I havent seen even one of several magazines or tests produce anywhere near that number. Now maybe this is a motor that really wakes up after being broken in but so far i'm disappointed that my 130hp less and 500lbs heavier suv is running similar times.

For comparison, using their testing methods (whatever those may be), Motorweek clocked your Jeep at 4.9 and 13.5. That is nowhere near "similar times".

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2527a.shtml

Luna.
12-08-08, 09:05 PM
Also-- I spoke with the head engineer for the V car/project- Mr. Berube, at Monticello. He told me that they actually get even better times on street pavement versus track pavement due to better traction, and..they have tried it on Drag Radials. He said "lets just say mid 11s are not a problem." :stirpot:

:confused::confused::confused:

I've always gotten better traction at the track than on the street and it wasn't even close (additional "rubber" on the track I guess). Granted, this was years and years ago, but that was my experience, as well as those that were dragging with me.

SRT8/BMW
12-08-08, 09:26 PM
:confused::confused::confused:

I've always gotten better traction at the track than on the street and it wasn't even close (additional "rubber" on the track I guess). Granted, this was years and years ago, but that was my experience, as well as those that were dragging with me.


In general--that has been my experience too. This is what he said though-and he is a very credible, and humble guy.

There are a few places I go with my rides that are "grainy" cement blacktop mix, where the car hooks instantly. But those places are not easy to find.

Luna.
12-08-08, 09:49 PM
In general--that has been my experience too. This is what he said though-and he is a very credible, and humble guy.

There are a few places I go with my rides that are "grainy" cement blacktop mix, where the car hooks instantly. But those places are not easy to find.

Agree on the "grainy" cement--that's instant hookup. I just found that comment interesting is all; I would expect a car at the track to hook up better is all. :hmm: