Cant say i like the look of the front end, but the powertrain is everything we hoped for


http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/2003/4/2003_ny_auto_show_1/index.phtml

YAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!! and who said the thing yould be under 300 hp?? ;)

Thats a pretty slick ride and I'm sure fun to drive. I only see one problem. If the CTS-V is going to be around $50,000 as the article says and the XLR which another link on this forum directed us to said that the XLR is going to be around $72,000 then what is Cadillac thinking.

Unless I'm missing something more here (which I could) do they expect you to pay another $20 - $25,000 to chop the top off that thing?

Otherwise the CTS-V should be the better deal unless they are going to jam the same engine in the XLR and chop the top, plus something else. Does anyone know?

Anddddddddd another thing... If the CTS-V is gonna 0-60 in less than 5 sec and have a top speed of over 155+ what are they gonna do with the Corvette?

There's no way they can let the Corvette get its a-- kicked by its Cadillac brethern.

The CTSV weighs 500 more lbs than the Z06 and 400 more lbs than the LS1 Vette.
It won't be quicker than either one.

im a little confused mnymaker. "Unless I'm missing something more here (which I could) do they expect you to pay another $20 - $25,000 to chop the top off that thing?"... Do you mean the XLR? They are all factory retractable hard-tops. As far as CTS-v being faster and costing less, that is fairly common in the market that Cadillac wants to play in. The MB E55 is 76k and goes 0-60 in 4.5, the SL500 is 86k and does it in 6.1. The XLR and CTS-v are not meant to be cross shopped. As for the vette the Z06 will definitely still be faster, and even the base vette might be, since we havent seen tests we dont know.

Pit a CTSv against a stock C5, and the C5 would probably still outrun the Caddy in more ways than one (i.e. better handling, grip, top speed, etc).

IMO, The CTSv is Cadillac's most power per dollar car whereas the XLR is Cadillac's most amenities per dollar car. If the XLR was meant to be race bred, there would be no need for the CTSv. Also, America lacks a midsize sport sedan that can keep up with the M3 and S4. The CTSv is it....the XLR isn't even in that category.

As for the Z06, sure magazines have compared the M3 to Corvettes, but that's if you look at a broad spectrum of similarly performing cars. Add two more doors to the Z06 or C5 and you'd have a better comparison...the CTSv essentially bridges this gap.

The one thing you're forgetting is (at least in the test I read) that the M3 actually BEAT the ZO6 in a few contests. So don't think that there's no way the CTSv could beat the C5. Just by looking at the numbers, I'd be rather sure a CTSv would ROMP on a C5.
The "sports car" and "sporty car" markets are going NUTS in case you haven't noticed. And bang-for-the-buck is a leading attribute. So GM better pony-up or they'll be left in the import's dust.
BTW, for all you Northstar lovers, notice Cadillac had to go to Chevrolet AGAIN for a REAL engine. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Where did the M3 beat the Z06 in a performance contest? I call BS.

CTSv will approach but not exceed C5's performance. More weight, less grip.

And if you think a $50,000 400hp GT sedan is overpriced, maybe you'd really rather have a Buick.

.Jinx

50k is a bargain compared to its competition

The comparo was in Motor Trend I think. They did a 3-way between the Vette, the M3, and a 911. As I recall, the M3 did good enough that they gave it the overall win in the test.

More CTS info:

http://media.gm.com/

14" rotors!
3.73 rearend!

Car weighs 3800lbs, which is 700lbs more than Z06.

Originally posted by Katshot
The comparo was in Motor Trend I think. They did a 3-way between the Vette, the M3, and a 911. As I recall, the M3 did good enough that they gave it the overall win in the test.

I think they gave it extra points for having a rear seat. :D

Originally posted by Katshot
BTW, for all you Northstar lovers, notice Cadillac had to go to Chevrolet AGAIN for a REAL engine. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Being a new small block Chevy owner...err...I mean new Fleetwood owner, don't the rail covers from the LS6 fit the LT1 with minor mod's? If so, it looks like we have a new 'Cadillac' source for some cool dress-up parts.

Originally posted by b4z
The CTSV weighs 500 more lbs than the Z06 and 400 more lbs than the LS1 Vette.
It won't be quicker than either one.

I could find a few hundred pounds to loose, if there's enough money on it. :D

I haven't tried them yet. I have the Corvette spec LT1 covers on mine and they required a little modding to get them to fit. I have a pic on my site.

so did I read that press release correctly: only two exterior colors available?

yep it says black and silver, probably more colors will roll out over time.

new side view pic:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5941

Im gonna have to see it in black, i really dont like the way it looks

Brett...I'm not a fan of the rear bumper but that's about it. Also, silver looks is 'just okay' on a CTS. Still, it's what we've always wanted!

I like the way it looks and I love the power and all.....I just wish it wasn't such a cramped interior.....Otherwise, I like it!!

I think it would look GREAT in black!:D

There are a few more angles and an interior shot on Cadillac.com under the future models section. The styling might grow on me, i was really hoping to be wowed. This car is on my short list of next vehicle when my lease runs out in Jan 04, so hopefully i like it better in person :)

M3 vs Z06, relavent in that Z06's motor is in CTSv:
The comparo was in Motor Trend I think. They did a 3-way between the Vette, the M3, and a 911. As I recall, the M3 did good enough that they gave it the overall win in the test.

1. Motor Trend? Bah!
2. The Z06 trounced the M3, but the reviewers liked the idea of the M3 so they picked it despite the numbers.

M3 is competitive with the base Corvette, not the Z06. If the CTS' chassis is as well-sorted as people say, the CTSv should edge out M3 in a performance contest. Of course, no magazine would dare choose a Cadillac over The Perfect One.

.Jinx

http://autoweek.com/specials/2003_newyork/

click on the small CTS-V pic.

Originally posted by Brett
Cant say i like the look of the front end, but the powertrain is everything we hoped for


http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/2003/4/2003_ny_auto_show_1/index.phtml

:D YES :D BTW The CTS has a great look of it's own it appeals to the new ERA of Cadillac buyers

I love the look of the CTS, and at 29 im hardly over the hill, but i do not like the front of the V, gimme a stock looking CTS with the V8, and i think that would be a better car.

CTS-V to be on TV tomorrow.
GM's own TV chanel.

gmtv.feedroom.com

Well regardless of how many more pounds the CTS-V weighs I'm just reading the numbers. It can weigh 7000lbs more but if they can get it to move the same distance in a shorter amount time then I say score board.

Now I admit that I don't know the 0-60 time of the C5 or Z06 vette but its got to be damn close if the CTS-V is 0-60ing in less than 5 secs.

and besides that. If Chevy don't get on it, the regular C5 will be getting pushed hard by the CTS-V which should be the measuring stick because everyone can and won't be driving a Z06.

A Z06 is fast but you can't even take the top off of it so to me the Z06 is strickly a land rocket, not a typical top down Vette. ( Although I love te Z06) I just think the competition is too close for America's Flagship Sports Car!!!

The new Corvette (C6) will be introduced at the Jan '04 NAIS. The base
C6 will have the new 6.0L LS2 engine rumored at 425HP/425 ft-lbs.
The C6-Z06 will have the new 6.4L LS7 engine rumored at 500HP.
The base C6 is rumored to weigh 100 to 200 lbs less than the C5.

"If Chevy don't get on it?" It's called C6, and it comes next year. Why is it so hard for people to understand that GM is not knee-jerking every incremental change to the market with some patch to an existing platform?

Besides, people talk of C5 like it's been eclipsed by the market, and ignorant horsepower comparisons notwithstanding, it just ain't true. It took Mercedes six years and an AMG badge to match C5's acceleration performance, and it took Ford an iron block and a blower to come close. News of C5's death at the hands of the competition is greatly exaggerated.

The window of opportunity for new CTSv owners to expect a close race against a new base Corvette is about six months. GM's hardly sleeping at the wheel.

.Jinx

its not like they can come out with all new models at once, these things take time. THe chevy guys cant just release the c6 six months early to compete with cadillac. Dont worry everything will sort out over time

Sounds good to me. I just want them to stay in the hunt. As a former Vette owner there is a certain pride about driving that Flagship American Sports Car.

Kinda like:
Baseball
Apple Pie
Harley Davidsons
and Cadillac's of course

Gotta keep the standards...

You just don't want them to get complacent.

Originally posted by Jinx
"If Chevy don't get on it?" It's called C6...

It used to also be called Camaro, Malibu, Nova, Monte Carlo, Impalla, Chevelle...

Not everyone wants/needs/desires a 2 seat sports car.

Chevy needs to get on it. GM needs to get on it. Trucks won't always be king.

I love it, but charging about $20,000 for a V8 option package on the $30k CTS seems a bit excessive... I really do want to see all these new V8 sedans on the market sell well, so I hope I am wrong.

But frankly, I think I would have to look more seriously at the new V8 Audi S4 than the CTS at that price. Other criteria beside horsepower enter the picture at prices like that, at least for me...

I'll have to wait until 2005+ I guess if I want even a chance at one, maybe catch a $5k rebate and an invoice price sale or something like that, I can't see spending $50k on it... $42k, heck yeah, $44k, just maybe...

50k for 400 hp is pretty nice. I see what your saying spike, and i had hoped the price would be a little less. But lets keep in mind the size and specs of the CTS most closely match that of the M5. Which is pretty impressive at 50k. I'd pass on the S4 just because i'd be too cramped, but thats more of a personal problem.

Originally posted by HotRodSaint
It used to also be called Camaro, Malibu, Nova, Monte Carlo, Impalla, Chevelle...

Not everyone wants/needs/desires a 2 seat sports car.

Can't argue with you there. Rattly wiggly front-drive old-tech V6s just don't cut it, do they?

.Jinx

NO!

50k is an estimate too...I remember the rumors said it would be more like 45k

There is not a 20K upcharge. The CTS can be optioned past 40K so it is closer to a 10K upcharge because the V will have many of the optional items as standard.

Originally posted by Jinx
Can't argue with you there. Rattly wiggly front-drive old-tech V6s just don't cut it, do they?

.Jinx

You forgot below average designs and poor build quality!

Originally posted by HotRodSaint
You forgot below average designs and poor build quality!

It's hard to limit THAT comment to any particular year(s) or models to be honest.

Originally posted by Katshot
It's hard to limit THAT comment to any particular year(s) or models to be honest.

Yeah! Look at those CHEESEY Fleetwoods!:D

Don't complain about the upcharge. You're getting more of a content increase than Corvette Z06 owners over the Corvette coupe. About $7,000 for different heads & valves, a tranny temp light, different sway bars & shocks, non-runflats (which are cheaper!) on slightly wider wheels, and a fixed top. Wee bit o' profit there.

The price of a car has little to do with what it costs and much to do with what the market will bear -- and it will certainly bear fifty large for the CTSv.

.Jinx

As usual Jinx you don't tell the whole story, you forgot the Z06 badges. :)

Originally posted by kcnewell
Yeah! Look at those CHEESEY Fleetwoods!:D

LOL!!! Especially the '95's huh? ;)

Originally posted by Brett
As usual Jinx you don't tell the whole story, you forgot the Z06 badges. :)

And don't forget those "red" calipers!!!

The '95s are the WORST!:banghead:

I think I want one!

Once again, Katshot and Brett set me straight.

btw, cadillac.com now has CTS-V info (incl an intereior shot)

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/futuremodels/vseries/overview.html

Originally posted by Jinx
Once again, Katshot and Brett set me straight.

We do what we can ;)

Originally posted by Katshot
It's hard to limit THAT comment to any particular year(s) or models to be honest.

I agree. 30 years of effort and only a handful of keepers to show for it.

From the Autoshow:

http://www.bmwm5.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=297579

Scroll down to the post by "KRM5".

Shows off the new silver color, the wheels and brakes, and the body color license plate.

The car looks killer in these photos.

Every source seems to state it only comes with the 6 speed?!?! No slushbox option?

interesting...

In alot of ways I hope that is actually the case for sinister reasons of my own, but I see Cadillac shooting themselves in the foot with regard to sales volumes with that also...

Originally posted by Spike
Every source seems to state it only comes with the 6 speed?!?! No slushbox option?

interesting...

In alot of ways I hope that is actually the case for sinister reasons of my own, but I see Cadillac shooting themselves in the foot with regard to sales volumes with that also...

And what kind of volume should one expect from a $50,000 400hp Sedan?

It's not about volume, it's about image.

The hard core enthusiasts will buy it, rave about it and their mild mannered friends (and parents and grandparents) will buy an automatic V6 and be satisfied.

So at the end of the day, it's about total CTS volume. And Cadillac volume. And Cadillac credibility. The last one, will take longer to acheive. But they seem to be finally ready to attempt it.

Besides, the slushbox will follow for the old farts and fragile little ladies.

But since this car is about revival, engineering and image, it won't be released until it's a world class tranny. It requires a 5spd auto-manual with paddle shifters on the steering wheel for this market segment. And they don't have one...yet.

By the time you finish the 18th hole, the slushbox will be ready for you. Oh, wait. That's now Buicks exclusive marketing venue. :D

GM doesn't want Cadillac to sell a lot of these, because it's devastating to their Corporate Average Fuel Economy number. It's probably a gas-guzzler. (Corvette Z06 -- same engine in a substantially lighter and more aerodynamic vehicle -- barely squeaks by the minimum fuel economy standard.)

Pontiac GTO also comes out this year and also suffers the same problem -- poor fuel economy. (Won't it have a slushbox available, since it's using an LS1?) GM wants its numbers limited too (18,000 per year?) -- to keep the UAW happy as much as the Federal fuel force. (Tough to lay off here if you're importing Holdens.)

Anyway, CTSv can't have a slushbox now because GM doesn't have one that can handle the power. Corvette Z06 doesn't have a slushbox, and Corvette coupes & convertibles equipped with a slushbox are artificially limited to 360ftlb torque (Manny gets 375) to spare their tender slushies.

C6 is presumed to bring a fortified slushbox (a safe assumption, since more than half of Corvette sales are so equipped) that can handle torque in LS6's neighborhood, so if the market truly demands it, GM might fit one at that time.

Isn't BMW M5 a Manny-only proposition?

.Jinx

yes on M5 question

Originally posted by Jinx
GM doesn't want Cadillac to sell a lot of these, because it's devastating to their Corporate Average Fuel Economy number. It's probably a gas-guzzler. (Corvette Z06 -- same engine in a substantially lighter and more aerodynamic vehicle -- barely squeaks by the minimum fuel economy standard.)

The Z06 has an EPA rating of 19 city
and 28 highway. Hardly squeaking by.
The way it does that is with a 1st to 4th
skip shift below 2000RPMs and a tall 6th
gear (2000 RPMs at 85mph). Assuming
the CTS's 6 speed does the same, then it
will be the 700 extra lbs that will reduce
the mileage which probably won't be
much worse than the V-6s. I predict
17 city and 25 highway.

No slush box....No sale! Of course that's just me. I just don't like shifting gears, after all the years of driving a truck.....I'm sick of it!
So till they get a decent auto. I'll pass, As much as I like power and speed I just won't buy a car without an automatic. I like to go fast without all the hassle of shifting gears! ( except of course on a motorcycle )

Squeaking by courtesy of skip-shift -- the minimum city mpg is 17.

CTSv's competitors are gas-guzzlers. Heck, it's probably a badge of honor.

Though now that I think about it, CTSv wears narrower rubber than Z06, and that impacts fuel economy too. (245/45-18s all around) Maybe it will squeak by.

But even under the wire, every CTSv sold hurts GM's CAFE. And an auto would make it much worse.

I've got an idea -- they could make it a hatchback with a flat load floor, then it'd qualify as a truck. And you'd sell a few to disaffected SAAB fans...

.Jinx

The "V" series is "supposed" to be a niche market car. They're not worried about it fitting everybody. They have a very specific market targeted. As was already pointed out, the majority of Corvettes sold are, and have been automatics. People in this country want the "appearance" of sport, without the drawback of having to shift. The CTSv is targeted after the Euro sport sedan market and THOSE customers PREFER to shift. In many people's books, if there's no manual trans, it CAN'T be a sports car.

consider me part of that niche market ...I'm going to make a promise right now: I'm buying one as soon as I graduate!

Originally posted by Jinx
Squeaking by courtesy of skip-shift -- the minimum city mpg is 17.

CTSv's competitors are gas-guzzlers. Heck, it's probably a badge of honor.

Though now that I think about it, CTSv wears narrower rubber than Z06, and that impacts fuel economy too. (245/45-18s all around) Maybe it will squeak by.

But even under the wire, every CTSv sold hurts GM's CAFE. And an auto would make it much worse.

I've got an idea -- they could make it a hatchback with a flat load floor, then it'd qualify as a truck. And you'd sell a few to disaffected SAAB fans...

.Jinx

Jinx:
I think you're missing the boat on how CAFE operates. This site should help you out:
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html

[i]But even under the wire, every CTSv sold hurts GM's CAFE. And an auto would make it much worse. [/B]

Some manuals get worse gas mileage
than some automatics. For example,

BMW 540i

5 sp auto 18/24
6 sp man 15/23

MB C240

5sp auto 19/25
6 sp man 17/26

It all depands on gearing. The new BMW
745i is rated at 18/26 and weighs a few
hundred lbs more the the 540i but it has a
new 6 speed automatic.

I understand how CAFE operates. CAFE and the gas-guzzler tax are only tangentially related.

CAFE sets an average fuel economy for GM's cars. Mathematically, every car GM sells that gets less than 27.5 MPG is hurting it; every car GM sells that gets better than 27.5 MPG helps it. Unfortunately, the formula for CAFE's fuel economy number isn't obvious given the city and highway numbers. If CAFE is similar to the number used for the gas-guzzler tax, then Corvette's 19/28 works out to 26 MPG -- below CAFE. Thus every Corvette sold hurts GM's average. Unless CTSv can hit 21/30 (fat chance!) it too will hurt GM's average.

As for auto versus manual, the only auto that could be used by CTSv at present (and after some fortification) is a four-speed, and it won't have the tall ratio in top gear that the T56 manual provides, so highway mileage would be reduced.

Great link, though. Among the interesting tidbits contained therein: BMW was fined twenty-six million dollars for failing to comply with CAFE standards on its MY2000 cars (latest MY posted).

I wonder if BMW can lump MINI in with their own number to meet CAFE for 2003? I notice fueleconomy.gov lists MINI as a separate manufacturer.

.Jinx

The current 5spd V6 CTS is only rated "18 mpg / 25 mpg"
My 6spd LS1 powered 2002 Camaro is rated "19 mpg / 28 mpg", and as was stated the LS6 engine gets similar economy from the T56... Does everyone think the CTSv will get less than 18/25 and therefore be less fuel efficient than the V6 model??

I didn't follow the CAFE links, and don't know much about CAFE, but I don't see how the sale of a CTSv can "hurt" GM's CAFE over the sale of a normal V6 CTS if it gets BETTER mileage figures than the V6 CTS, it would seem they would WANT to sell more of them in place of V6 CTS cars if their EPA/CAFE figures are HIGHER?! Every sale of a CTSv in place of a CTS reduces their CAFE deficit doesn't it?

"Does everyone think the CTSv will get less than 18/25 and therefore be less fuel efficient than the V6 model??"

Good question. I look to the Camaro:

3.8L V6, 5m: 19/31
5.7L V8, 6m: 19/28

3.8L V6, 4a: 19/30
5.7L V8, 4a: 18/25

Yes, I think the V8 CTSv will perform more poorly than the V6 CTS 5m.

.Jinx

jinx,

Nope.
You can't compare a 3.8L pushrod engine that is geared tall
to a 3.2L DOHC engine that is geared more highly.

On the higway cycle, the larger pushrod motor turning slowly will beat the higher revving smaller DOHC motor every time.

I will guarantee you that the CTS-V will get at least 25 mpg on the hwy.
If I could I would put money on it.

We are talking about an engine that will be turning about 1600 rpms at 60 mph.

A case in point is my '01 Impala LS with the 3800 motor, it is rated at 30 mpg hwy but i have gotten 34 mpg at 65 mph and 29-30 mpg at 79 mph.

I think you will be surprised when the CTS-V comes out with a 25 mpg or higher hwy rating. I am also sure that there are other people on this thread who have posted big hwy numbers with their large pushrod V8 and V6 GM motors.

My '02 Z28 with the LS1 and 6speed gets 28 to 30mpg on highway trips at 75 to 80 mph... the lowest I've ever gotten on a highway trip was 26mpg, and that was with speeds WELL over 85mph headed from LA to Vegas in 105+ degree heat on that $3 a gallon 90 octane swill they call gas in LA...

BTW, the LS1/T56 combo in my car turns 1500rpm at about 62mph or so.

I would have to guess that they'll be able to keep the CTSv near the highway miles of the Camaros/Vettes, but that the city miles will drop. I bet 17/26 is the lowest we'll see...

This one time, at band camp... Everybody's got a road trip high-mileage tale. My 2001 Z51 coupe included. They don't change the window sticker figures or the CAFE figures. (At least not until the government reevaluates the mileage adjustment factor.)

If CTSv has a higher CAFE mileage number than its V6 cousin, I'll eat my hat.

Of course, my hat is made from Fruit Rollups, so this isn't saying much.

But if you folks think that CTSv is going to be so efficient that it IMPROVES the General's CAFE position, you need to either turn off the ignition or open the garage door.

.Jinx
Powered by StarKist

bah, you're just mad because the CTSv is gonna OWN your vette... and it's probably gonna get better mileage too if it's an automatic. ;-)

Spike
Powered by squirrel and dumplins

Only because I'm such a ham-fisted driver. CTSvs won't be smoking new Corvettes.

Jinx and spike,

If spike's Z28 turns 1500 rpms at 62 mph then the CTS-V will be turning about 1621 rpms at that same speed (provided the tires are same diameter).

Hwy only mileage will be excellent.

Jinx will be eating his hat.

The CTS-V will not be helping GM's CAFE numbers but it won't hurt either.
The city mileage advantage would go to the V6 of course.
At least until DOD comes out.

CTS-V will not be quicker than a LS1 Vette. There is an extra 5-600 lbs. The CTS-V's extra hp will be used up lugging it around.

As far as CAFE is concerned all Highway mileage numbers are multiplied by .78. So if a car obtains 40 mpg on the hwy loop the EPA will rate it at 31 mpg. Hwy.

Every GM car that my family has ever owned has beaten it's Highway number on long trips.

My concerns are the everyday suitability of the 6-sd with Summer-only Run Flat Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires. On the Corvette Z06, my Vette fiends with Z06es say they are plain poor in rain. Needless to say they will not work in winter anywhere where you get freezing crud and some snow. The color choices are, IMHO, boring (Black or Silver). I like silver if it has a bright contrasting interior (Firethorn red? or Medium Blue?). But come on now, if you do silver outside do you go for a black interior (ala the Vette) -- too hot in the summer for my tastes. So in conclusion, the good news (Vette engine), good news (Z06 engine) of the New York Auto show has now turned into Bad News for me and my wife. The Manual tranny with summer only tires won't hack it in my house as a replcement vehicle for year-round use. Ugh!!!

Originally posted by GordonB
my Vette fiends with Z06es say they are plain poor

i guess you meant "friends", but that term works well too. I agree manual only kind of stinks, that would be the only reason i wouldn't buy one. But as far as color Black on Black is all i buy so it works for me

Now that i think of it, I didnt think the Z06's came with Run-flats. Arent only non-Z06 vettes run-flat equipped?

Brett, and others
Yes, only non-Z06es are Run-Flat equipped.
Z06es come with an Inflater and fix-a-flat kit!
Gordon

Originally posted by Brett
i guess you meant "friends", but that term works well too. I agree manual only kind of stinks, that would be the only reason i wouldn't buy one. But as far as color Black on Black is all i buy so it works for me


They drive Z-06's......They might indeed be FIENDS!:D

I'm unclear as to what somebody dislikes about a stick in the winter?
I would ALWAYS prefer a stick to an auto on a car like a Vette, or any other sports car, and ESPECIALLY in the snow and ice.

im assuming they meant the rwd in the winter, as for stick i agree with you

I drove plenty of sports cars in the snow and ice, most were automatics and I'll teel you THAT can get scary. My last sports car was a Formula w/5-speed stick. The car was actually pretty good in the snow. At least within the limits of the ground clearance ;)

Originally posted by Katshot
The one thing you're forgetting is (at least in the test I read) that the M3 actually BEAT the ZO6 in a few contests. So don't think that there's no way the CTSv could beat the C5. Just by looking at the numbers, I'd be rather sure a CTSv would ROMP on a C5.
The "sports car" and "sporty car" markets are going NUTS in case you haven't noticed. And bang-for-the-buck is a leading attribute. So GM better pony-up or they'll be left in the import's dust.
BTW, for all you Northstar lovers, notice Cadillac had to go to Chevrolet AGAIN for a REAL engine. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

actually 01 z06 (not the 02 z06 which are little bit faster) placed 1st in every test category and tied for 1st in one. But motortrend gave it to m3 because it had backseats eventhough test was all about performance.

CTSv in direct competition with z06 is not happening. One is a purebred sports car and other is a luxury sporty car. New m3 can't even catch up to base c5 in real life especially on the highway.

CTS and XLR are not even in the same market or built on same platform.

if you think the ctsv is a threat to vette, maybe but in reality not really. Cadillac's main target for CTSv would be m3/s4/AMG c32 buyers.

I'm glad that GM went all out and put the 400hp LS6 instead of the rumored LS1. I give them :thumbsup: for making the right decision. It will be interesting to see the CTSv go against m3 in the twisties.

Sweet post! Gotta love all the speculation! Kind of reminds me of now waiting for the next V!

Holy old post batman.

Awesome! Old becomes new again...

,,, just wanting to be a part of (Forum) history,,,

Its like going back in time.