Cadillac Owners Forum banner
14K views 111 replies 16 participants last post by  The Tony Show 
#1 ·
So, at what point do you think AWD will be a MUST in order to harness the power from the engine? And do you think AWD would be a good thing, or a bad thing on a "V" car?
 
#2 ·
I don't know that it will ever be a "must"- I mean, look at cars like the ACR Viper and the ZR1. They're lighter weight with quite a bit more power and they still manage to be driveable.

AWD drive would also make an already heavy car even moreso, and while GMPD has done an awesome job making the CTS-V handle great for its weight, you can't just keep piling on more unless there's a significant return. The PTM system will do a great job keeping the rear tires from going up in smoke, and AWD would just add understeer. I don't see a need for it, but if the customers want it, they'll build it.
 
#3 ·
I think some comparisons with the RS6 when it comes out will answer this question. My feeling is that the power to weight levels still aren't to a point where AWD is going to give you a huge advantage, if any?? The PTM and Launch control on this new V are going to put it ahead of the RS6 Avant and Sedan I am quite sure. My guess is that the RS6 will not quite make it below 8 minutes on the Ring in sedan form, but the CTS-V will run it under 8 minutes. Hopefully they do a wagon form of the V for Europe to have bragging rights on that front also. 0-60 and quarter mile will probably be very close also though.
 
#13 ·
I know there's always going to be the purists out there saying that RWD is the ONLY way to go but I think as AWD systems have evolved, and engine power outputs have climbed, AWD will probably prove to be the choice for maximum performance in real-world driving situations. Yeah, on dry pavement, RWD with a high quality traction-control system can do just fine. If you want to see another RWD vs. AWD comparo....check out the Shelby Mustang vs. the Subaru Sti. Here's a link to the video index 9not sure how to post the actual video, sorry.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/VideosGalleryIndex#12
 
#14 · (Edited)
I know there's always going to be the purists out there saying that RWD is the ONLY way to go
If you're not a purist, you don't belong in this car.

Katshot said:
but I think as AWD systems have evolved, and engine power outputs have climbed, AWD will probably prove to be the choice for maximum performance in real-world driving situations. Yeah, on dry pavement, RWD with a high quality traction-control system can do just fine. If you want to see another RWD vs. AWD comparo....
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/VideosGalleryIndex#12
The V should not be compromised for often subjective "real-world" driving conditions. It should be an example of how much performance America can wring from a luxury-sport sedan (just like the ZR1 is an example of an uncompromised coupe). If you want to trade performance for a bit of added traction and safety, we can direct you to a 3.6DI AWD model.

ZR1s will be terrible in the snow and would have a better 0-60 if they were AWD. What were they thinking?
:gothicaleigh:
 
#15 ·
I must admit, I've always wondered about the model overlap between the CTS and STS. Maybe the CTS is destined to be the more hard-edged model of the two. I'd love to see the actual business plan for these two cars. What GM's views are on them. Why THEY feel there's a need for BOTH cars. Hell, the same could ALMOST be said for the DTS and STS too.
 
#16 ·
There is no need for both. GM is axing both the STS and DTS to be replaced with a single 7-series sized model. I believe the current STS was just a placeholder to ease the transition from the SeVille to the upcoming replacement.

The CTS is our 5-series and they are bringing the next generation BLS here to fill the smaller 3-series slot.
 
#21 ·
I can think of one reason to make AWD an option. And that is for all the Snow Belt people. I dont think they should have to buy a second car for the sake of "purity".

Snow is a bitch, no matter what anyone says. Someone will come on here and thump their chest saying, put on some snow tires and deal with it, but AWD is far superior.

A short list of cars I had when I lived in Chicago: Mustang, Trans Am, GN, C5. They all SUCKED. Even with snow tires. I could have easliy flipped or crashed any of them several times.
 
#22 ·
Agreed. At least if you have a manual trans, you have a fighting chance but those cars aren't very good in snow, you're right.
Plus, you have to consider that GM hopes to sell some of these in the export market which includes some areas of the world that would benefit from AWD.
Plus plus, I still have a problem with understanding why someone would buy one of these if they're looking for a car for the track. Sure, you can do it but why, when there are so many other cars out there that are a more natural fit for the track. Face it, the percentage of owners who will ever actually take their cars to the track is relatively small, so even though they COULD, why restrict the car's appeal to appease such a small group? After all, the point is to sell cars, right?
 
#23 · (Edited)
It seems to have worked well enough thus far for BMW's ///M division. No AWD there either despite offering it in their base models since at least the 80's.

Also you underestimate the number of people who would never explore the limits of a car but want to be able to say that it could. The bragging rights demographic is very large.
 
#24 ·
Nobody says you need to play "follow the leader"

As for the "bragging rights" crowd, most of them are tools who don't know anything about cars and the AWD would be something for them to actually brag about. Talk to some Carrera 4 owners and see what their opinion of a Carrera 2 is.
 
#25 ·
True, and don't get me started about Audi. Goth, I'm getting tired of hearing about what BMW does to be honest. On one hand, you want to say how Cadillac is or will be better than BMW but on the other hand you use BMW as an example of what to do or not to do. You want to have Cadillac trash the idea of using a V8 with a wide powerband too?
 
#26 · (Edited)
True, and don't get me started about Audi. Goth, I'm getting tired of hearing about what BMW does to be honest.
...and plenty of us get tired of hearing about what Cadillac does not.


Katshot said:
On one hand, you want to say how Cadillac is or will be better than BMW but on the other hand you use BMW as an example of what to do or not to do.
Cadillac executives use BMW as an example of what to do or not to do. They have never been shy about who exactly they are targeting. BMW has long been the benchmark for this part of the auto industry, so the comparison is natural.

Katshot said:
You want to have Cadillac trash the idea of using a V8 with a wide powerband too?
Where did this come from?

I want them to use what works. If that means a Chevy LS V8, fine. But say a small straight 4 is the best answer, why not use it? The ends justify the means. The argument that the engine must be a V8 is as ridiculous as those who argue that the Corvette is a lesser car than [insert flavor of the week here] because it has a pushrod engine and leafsprings. The ends justify the means.
 
#27 ·
Corvette, leafsprings????? Huh??
Okay, anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, my point is that Cadillac shouldn't be doing things just because BMW does, and I don't think that you using what BMW does as an adequate reason for Cadillac to do something is right either.
Bottom line, Cadillac is looking to compete head to head with BMW AND OTHERS but, they also have some unique issues to contend with. For that reason, I can understand paying attention to what the competition does but not necessarily using them as a blueprint.
I for one like the fact that GM is using the engine they are verses a high-revving, low-torque V10. I also think that as a marketing concession they're probably right in offering an automatic (although I'm sure as a "purist" the decision probably offends you) since it's all about selling cars.
 
#28 ·
Corvette, leafsprings????? Huh??
The Corvette has a long history of riding on transverse leafsprings. The same flat-earthers that point out the OHV "pushrod" LS engine as a "flaw" usually also like to point to the leafsprings (neither argument is very good though).

The insistance of a V8 around here is akin to that. The technology used should be immaterial if the results produced are desirable.
 
#30 ·
Yeah but notice when they gave up the transverse leaf, the car ascended to a whole new level of handling etc. I understood what you were saying, was just surprised you brought up something so old. Thought maybe you thought they still used leafsprings.
As for the insistence of a V8, I too feel it's the ONLY engine for the car. Your argument is valid on paper but in my book, enthusiast owners are rarely so analytical. I for one would HATE my car to sound like a Viper even though the power would be nice. You ever drive one? Or even hear one up close? Nothing inspiring at all about the exhaust note. There's just more to a car, especially a sports car, than the raw numbers on a spreadsheet. MY car MUST be a V8. The rumble is unmistakable, and something I don't want to live without. A performance car should be not only fast and well handling. It needs to be a feast for the senses. ALL the senses IMO.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Katshot said:
Yeah but notice when they gave up the transverse leaf, the car ascended to a whole new level of handling etc. I understood what you were saying, was just surprised you brought up something so old. Thought maybe you thought they still used leafsprings.
...because, well... they do... o_O

Even the ZR1 rides on transverse leaf springs.

Katshot said:
As for the insistence of a V8, I too feel it's the ONLY engine for the car. Your argument is valid on paper but in my book, enthusiast owners are rarely so analytical.
See, I believe the opposite. The masses are easily swayed by advertising gimmicks like "hemi", "sport" versions and "hp", but true enthusiasts want results.

Katshot said:
I for one would HATE my car to sound like a Viper even though the power would be nice. You ever drive one? Or even hear one up close? Nothing inspiring at all about the exhaust note. There's just more to a car, especially a sports car, than the raw numbers on a spreadsheet. MY car MUST be a V8. The rumble is unmistakable, and something I don't want to live without. A performance car should be not only fast and well handling. It needs to be a feast for the senses. ALL the senses IMO.
That is a completely subjective argument. For example, it could be argued that a Ferrari V12 sounds much better than any V8.


BMW's V10 isn't too bad either.
 
#32 ·
Sorry, I really didn't know they still used a leaf on the Corvette. Shows how much I care about Corvettes I guess.
And yes, I realize I'm being subjective with respect to my statement about a V8. That's why I said things like "I feel" or "on my car". I still think a vast majority of American performance car buyers feel the same but I could be wrong.
 
#35 · (Edited)
I thought that Audi answered all the questions about AWD when they went Trans-Am racing against Camaro and Mustang purpose built silhouette race cars with stock bodied Quattros. Hans Stuck and Walter Rohrl made everybody else look like monkeys strictly on handling. They ripped off a string of victories that will probably never be matched. They were running a dinky five cylinder against 5L V8s and embarrassing the competition. The lines they were able to take through the corners made everybody's jaw drop. Not only did they have the Quattro AWD but they kept the steel bodies against race cars. It didn't hurt that they were two wiley old veterans that enjoyed crapping all over the young guys. Hurley Heywood showed them a thing or two as well. The first guy with the throttle wide open coming out of the corners is going to win the race every time and that's what AWD does for you. Ask Roger Penske. Audi handed his head to him.
 
#39 ·
I thought that Audi answered all the questions about AWD when they went Trans-Am racing against Camaro and Mustang purpose built silhouette race cars with stock bodied Quattros. Hans Stuck and Walter Rohrl made everybody else look like monkeys strictly on handling. They ripped off a string of victories that will probably never be matched. They were running a dinky five cylinder against 5L V8s and embarrassing the competition. The lines they were able to take through the corners made everybody's jaw drop. Not only did they have the Quattro AWD but they kept the steel bodies against race cars. It didn't hurt that they were two wiley old veterans that enjoyed crapping all over the young guys. Hurley Heywood showed them a thing or two as well. The first guy with the throttle wide open coming out of the corners is going to win the race every time and that's what AWD does for you.
Another thing AWD does for you is wear your tires out faster than the competion too. In the GT World Speed Challenge races in the first couple seasons that Randy Pobst and company raced their RS6 Audis against the CTS-VR they were certainly quick out of the gate and ususally led in the early stages of the race. But the Vs would slowly gain on them throughout the race and were very competive towards the end of the race - if not outright passing and winning. I know the rewards weights added to the cars complicates things but you can safely assume that the heavier the car - the quicker it will wear tires. The Vs were lighter than the Audis and I'm sure the absence of AWD had something to do with it.
 
#48 ·
The Audis of Hans Stuck, Hurley Heywood, and Walter Rohrl were stock steel bodied and they were running against the 2600lb purpose built race cars of Jack Roush among others. They shamed the opposition so badly that AWD was legislated out of the competition. Audi quit and went IMSA racing. Horsepower is not the be-all end-all in road racing. The first guy to WOT coming out of the corner wins. The RWD car is going to burn the rear tires off trying.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top