: USA Today thinks it knows about the new V



Uebele
06-13-13, 09:53 PM
Not sure if we should believe this or not. I hope not.

http://usat.ly/11KATCT

Chrispy
06-13-13, 09:56 PM
Thats the V-Sport not the V.

The V should be at least 580hp

JFJr
06-13-13, 10:27 PM
Thats the V-Sport not the V.

The V should be at least 580hp

That's why I hate the "Vsport" name, the media will never get it straight. Maybe the real "V" will be priced lower because of the confusion. Right..

Jud

MEDISIN
06-13-13, 10:35 PM
This is getting ridiculous. They should just call it the CTS Sport. Additional V nomenclature is going to (a) be more confusing, (b) dilute the V cachet. It's like Chevy putting SS on everything. Drives me nuts.

1997BlackETC
06-13-13, 10:44 PM
I know the Vsport Idea was stupid. I think more appropriate woulda been the CTS Turbo Sport.

Just adding, wow, 60 grand is a lot of money for the Vsport and that's just the base price with no options, put some options on it like a sunroof and a few other things and I'm sure the car will be up there around 65 grand.

neuronbob
06-13-13, 10:57 PM
I posted a comment for the editors to correct their error. We'll see if it actually happens. Sigh.

1997BlackETC
06-13-13, 11:17 PM
Ya, that's kinda a dumb mistake on USA todays part.

Jinx
06-14-13, 02:11 AM
All they had to do was read the press release and not screw up the nouns when they regurgitated it.
But this is USA Today.

M5eater
06-14-13, 08:11 AM
This is getting ridiculous. They should just call it the CTS Sport. Additional V nomenclature is going to (a) be more confusing, (b) dilute the V cachet. It's like Chevy putting SS on everything. Drives me nuts.

Cadillac is dead last to the party in using their in-house tuning company name on more pedestrian cars.

BMW M-sport
Audi S-Line
Lexus F-sport
Mercedes blaintly puts AMG badges all over anything a customer wants just about.


all they had to do was read the press release and not screw up the nouns when they regurgitated it.
But this is USA Today.
seriously, How hard is it to repost something? :hmm:

stl_ls1gto
06-14-13, 08:12 AM
V Sport is in no way a bad idea from a sales/brand point of view. It is a great new turbo engine in the CTS, it is going to be a sweet ride. As said before in other threads, the people who care about cars will know the difference, that is all that matters when it comes down to it. Mercedes has the AMG sport packages, BMW has the M sport packages, SRT has the SRT-design packages, all of them use their performance name and badges put on the regular series cars with different amounts of trim and performance equipment on them. Most people don't actually want the more powerful engines, hard suspensions, higher maintenance and insurance costs that go with the highest performance versions of their cars, they just want the look of them.

The more of these Cadillac sells, the more money they will make and have available to make actual V Series cars for the rest of us.

spearfish25
06-14-13, 11:40 AM
The Vsport starting at $60k may push the next V into the $80k+ range.

thebigjimsho
06-14-13, 12:51 PM
The Vsport starting at $60k may push the next V into the $80k+ range.

Oh, it WILL be...

odla
06-14-13, 02:06 PM
Seems like the v is going more into the same prices as m5, amg's and the like money territory. The v1 was great bang for the buck. The v2 was still there but going on up. I guess when you are moving on up your cost does too lol.

readyact
06-14-13, 02:35 PM
Oh, it WILL be...

I feel the same as it will be at least $80k.

Jinx
06-14-13, 02:51 PM
Actual bang-for-buck comparison --

V1, $49,995 base price
400hp: 8.00 hp per thousand dollars
0-60 in 5.2 seconds, 16.92 ft/sec2: 0.338 ft/sec2 per thousand dollars
13.7 sec 1/4mi, 96.35 ft/sec: 1.927 ft/sec per thousand dollars

V2, $65,000 base price
556hp: 8.55 hp per thousand dollars
0-60 in 4.3 seconds, 20.47 ft/sec2: 0.315 ft/sec2 per thousand dollars
12.6 sec 1/4mi, 104.76 ft/sec: 1.612 ft/sec per thousand dollars

I did not find a Nurburgring lap time for the V1 or other linear measurement to account for handling. Anybody got any decent apples-to-apples figures for a road course or such?

.Jinx

JFJr
06-14-13, 03:53 PM
Cadillac is dead last to the party in using their in-house tuning company name on more pedestrian cars.

BMW M-sport
Audi S-Line
Lexus F-sport
Mercedes blaintly puts AMG badges all over anything a customer wants just about.


The Germans love complexity and are wh***s. Why can't Cadillac dare to be different and simplify? It was bad enough that the V1 grill was available for non-V's. Maybe they'll have to sell more vinyl roof coverings and gold trim packages for the other models to increase revenue. Bad taste is always in good supply.

Jud :lildevil:

Jinx
06-14-13, 05:20 PM
The merits of the Vsport moniker were beaten to death not long ago:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2009-2013-cadillac-cts-v-general/286204-vsport-trim-thing-new-cts-lame.html

Is there anything new to say or should we just copy-paste?

pat2t2f
06-14-13, 05:55 PM
Maybe I missed something but I thought they were correct. They saiid a new sport model named the ctsv sport will have a 6 cylinder turbo charged engine with 420 horsepower. Isn't that what's happening? They just didn't mention the V at all. Maybe there is no info on it yet.

Jinx
06-14-13, 06:04 PM
They fixed the article. Yesterday it said CTS-V where today it says CTS Vsport.

The great thing about online journalism is you don't have to print corrections or retractions.

pato
06-14-13, 07:17 PM
Actual bang-for-buck comparison --

V1, $49,995 base price
400hp: 8.00 hp per thousand dollars
0-60 in 5.2 seconds, 16.92 ft/sec2: 0.338 ft/sec2 per thousand dollars
13.7 sec 1/4mi, 96.35 ft/sec: 1.927 ft/sec per thousand dollars

V2, $65,000 base price
556hp: 8.55 hp per thousand dollars
0-60 in 4.3 seconds, 20.47 ft/sec2: 0.315 ft/sec2 per thousand dollars
12.6 sec 1/4mi, 104.76 ft/sec: 1.612 ft/sec per thousand dollars

I did not find a Nurburgring lap time for the V1 or other linear measurement to account for handling. Anybody got any decent apples-to-apples figures for a road course or such?

.Jinx

Where did u get those numbers for the V1 and V2? They seem a little high.

Jinx
06-14-13, 07:31 PM
Car & Driver, from the road tests for the first-year cars. They correct for conditions and are fairly consistent over time.

neuronbob
06-14-13, 07:36 PM
I posted a comment for the editors to correct their error. We'll see if it actually happens. Sigh.

They corrected the error. Cool!

thebigjimsho
06-14-13, 07:50 PM
Seems like the v is going more into the same prices as m5, amg's and the like money territory. The v1 was great bang for the buck. The v2 was still there but going on up. I guess when you are moving on up your cost does too lol.

Base Vs were only about $12G more than the V1. For all the engineering you got and how complete it was? The V2 was/is a tremendous value. Just as much as the V1.

Think of it this way...

How much would a V1 cost if maggied with 8.8 rear, axles and a MRC suspension?

----------


Car & Driver, from the road tests for the first-year cars. They correct for conditions and are fairly consistent over time.

I know C&D had an '04 with a 4.6 0-60 time...

Gman1023
06-14-13, 08:24 PM
Actual bang-for-buck comparison --

V1, $49,995 base price
400hp: 8.00 hp per thousand dollars
0-60 in 5.2 seconds, 16.92 ft/sec2: 0.338 ft/sec2 per thousand dollars
13.7 sec 1/4mi, 96.35 ft/sec: 1.927 ft/sec per thousand dollars

V2, $65,000 base price
556hp: 8.55 hp per thousand dollars
0-60 in 4.3 seconds, 20.47 ft/sec2: 0.315 ft/sec2 per thousand dollars
12.6 sec 1/4mi, 104.76 ft/sec: 1.612 ft/sec per thousand dollars

I did not find a Nurburgring lap time for the V1 or other linear measurement to account for handling. Anybody got any decent apples-to-apples figures for a road course or such?

.Jinx

Keep in mind that when it came out in '09, the base price on a V2 was $59,995.

Or, if you would rather, compare to the competition. The V1 came out immediately following the E39 M5. It had extremely similar stats and options but cost $20k less. The V2 came out late in the E60 M5 cycle except that it now had better performance figures and cost $30k less then the M5. Looks like the V3 will begin to close the price gap. Smart business move, but kind of disappointing given the history of the V and what set it apart in the past.

Jinx
06-14-13, 08:32 PM
You're right, I eventually found the right MSRP; the estimates before the announcement were all over. That makes it
9.27 hp per thousand dollars
0.341 ft/sec2 per thousand dollars
1.746 ft/sec per thousand dollars

RGaret
06-14-13, 08:46 PM
Keep in mind that when it came out in '09, the base price on a V2 was $59,995.

Or, if you would rather, compare to the competition. The V1 came out immediately following the E39 M5. It had extremely similar stats and options but cost $20k less. The V2 came out late in the E60 M5 cycle except that it now had better performance figures and cost $30k less then the M5. Looks like the V3 will begin to close the price gap. Smart business move, but kind of disappointing given the history of the V and what set it apart in the past.

I just checked BMWUSA.COM. M5 starts out around $90k. Configured the way I would have it and it's right at $107k. So, if the V3 is $20k less, that would put it at $70k to about $87k. Now, how many of us paid MSRP for this car? Probably no one did. I want to see what my GM supplier discount will get me in a couple of years time.

spearfish25
06-14-13, 10:18 PM
The price increase that we're anticipating with the V3 really shouldn't be much of a surprise. It's easy to make a relatively cheap competitor to the Germans with 400hp (V1). Then you make it more powerful and add a bit more finish without caring much about weight and you get the V2. To make another evolutional step, the V3 is going to need to be lighter. 600hp in a 4500lb car just won't cut it with the big boys unless Cadillac is putting some trick engineering and software into the car 'GTR style'. So figure on some composites (hopefully carbon fiber instead of plastic and fiberglass) as well as another step up in interior luxury. And just like the GTR started off as a bargain and evolved into a $100k+ machine, the V3 will be significantly more expensive than it's far removed starter-self V1.

RGaret
06-15-13, 04:43 PM
When I was at the V labs event in Monticello 2 years ago, they said the V was "M5 performance for M3 money". I'm not saying that's why I got this car, but it is nice to save that much cash. I had a BMW and while I wouldn't say it was super reliable, their build quality was outstanding. Is the new V going to match that as well? If so then maybe the price is justifiable.

MSOsr
06-15-13, 09:49 PM
Notice that the stock 2014 CTS is $6000 more than this year? Success breeds the opportunity to bump up prices; let's hope Cadillac doesn't overdo it.

Mike

Jinx
06-15-13, 10:13 PM
That's not a fair comparison because the 2014 has more standard equipment.

pato
06-16-13, 03:18 AM
I read car & driver too.
The numbers you got are for the manual transmission V2.
According to C&D the auto V2 does 0-60 in 3.9 and 1/4 mile in 12.2 @119.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2009-cadillac-cts-v-automatic-instrumented-test

And the V1 0-60 in 4.8, and 1/4 mile in 13.2 @ 109.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2005-audi-s4-vs-cadillac-cts-v-m-b-c55-amgexecutive-adrenalators-powertrain.pdf

I suck at launching and I managed to get a 4.8 0-60 in my V1 :)

Jinx
06-16-13, 10:26 AM
Since the V1 didn't come with an automatic, I feel the manual V2 is the more appropriate comparison. And I compared first tests, not whichever road test or comparison test during the life of the product happened to produce the numbers you're happiest with. Also, the 2005 V cost $51,295 and the 2009 automatic cost $61,295. See, you can dig up variations and quibble until the cows come home. Is there a point to you posting different numbers? Why is first-test-to-first-test not appropriate?

DPL
06-16-13, 11:49 AM
My guess is they won't brand the V3 a CTS-V.