AWD is obviously the best choice for 0-60 times (ie from a dead stop). See also: GT-R.

However, you seem to think that the V3 either needs less HP - so one won't suffer the indignity of spinning the wheels in 1st gear - or the only other option is AWD?

You forgot "throttle modulation" and "better tires," both of which are cheaper/more fuel efficient than AWD and more entertaining than less HP. Hell, I'd be okay with RWD if the V3 comes with a 10.5" diameter rear wheel and better tires from the factory.

With that said... AWD would be pretty freaking awesome! As far as high HP and AWD... well, it can be tricky (and costly) to get that kind of power to the ground with a suitable transmission, transfer case, etc without taking a huge weight penalty AND while ensuring a 100,000 mile warranty period (see also: the GT-R's price and maintenance schedule).

 

Why not launch control which would be a lot cheaper without much, if any, weight increase?

Jud

 

I'm with Jud. I've often wondered why launch control has not been a feature in the entire six-model year run for the V2. Did they simply decide it was too difficult to manage with the current setup? Or do automotive engineers enjoy liquifying tires as much as we, the enthusiast motoring public, do? :lildevil:

BTW, I'm having a hard time believing it's already been a six-model year run for the V2 at the end of the 2014 MY. Wow.

 

All launch control does is cut power until your tires have traction, then gradually increase power, keeping them right on the limit of adhesion. At least in the ZR-1 it's a good system, but a better solution would be to ensure your tires always have traction, which is what AWD does. AWD isn't the only solution though, the Z06 has a really nice balance of lots of power and huge 12" wide rims with 335-width tires and that gets the job done. Somebody else mentioned a new Australian Holden with the CTS-V drivetrain, but it comes with 20" wheels. I don't know how wide they are, but hopefully wider than 9.5", and that's a step in the right direction.

If the V3 CTS-V comes with much wider, Z06-style 12" wide rims and the ability to put 335s or 345s on them, that will go a really long way towards solving traction issues. But I've owned a lot of AWD cars, and I think AWD is a good option too. Don't know if it's actually feasible, but the new E63 did it and did it right - most of the power still goes to the rear and power oversteer is not a problem. But at the same time, you can launch from a stop like an AWD car, and frankly the ability to use the car's power at speeds under 60 MPH would be nice for a change.

 

Yeah, I know how launch control works; a lot like trying to feather the throttle without it, but I have nothing against AWD, and it should be an option. I would rather have some of the trick suspension/rear end things the C7 has, and save the weight. I'm more excited about the TR6070 and the refinement it offers; however, that's off subject. I don't think that the Cadillac high performance guys will disappoint us, and if they need some advice, we could all oblige. Ha haa!

Jud

 

From a sales standpoint it would be in cadillac's best interest to offer it in awd as an option.

I can guarantee that the move Mercedes made with the awd e63 is going to result in a HUGE jump in sales for that car in the snow belt, especially in NYC. I guarantee that most people in ny who buy e550 4 matcs, and 550xi xdrive (whatever they're calling it this week) would easily have gone e63/m3 if they had awd for the winters. This may surprise people from the south but the take rate for the awd variants of these RWD luxury sedans is around half.

I say offer it as an option because who doesn't love RWD?

 

From a sales standpoint it would be in cadillac's best interest to offer it in awd as an option.

I can guarantee that the move Mercedes made with the awd e63 is going to result in a HUGE jump in sales for that car in the snow belt, especially in NYC. I guarantee that most people in ny who buy e550 4 matcs, and 550xi xdrive (whatever they're calling it this week) would easily have gone e63/m3 if they had awd for the winters. This may surprise people from the south but the take rate for the awd variants of these RWD luxury sedans is around half.

I say offer it as an option because who doesn't love RWD?

Even with AWD if the car has summer tires it still can't be driven through snow. I live in the northeast and I wouldn't drive my car in the snow under any conditions because of all the morons with SUV's that think they have some sort of super powers when it snows. I prefer to stay home until the roads are plowed.

 

True didn't think about the summer tires. Swapping to all seasons will be popular on the e63 in the northeast.

 

I still agree that AWD would be great from a performance and traction perspective. Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, and Bugatti all offer AWD on their cars. Now MB is onboard too. If the V2 had AWD, we could probably get to 60 in 3.6 seconds or less. I would be willing to pay for that.

 

AWD adds weight and lots more drivetrain loss, plus lots more complicated systems that can need repair. If I wanted AWD I would get an Audi. I want them to stick with RWD.

 

Considering the CTS v sport will only be rwd there is no doubt in my mind the v3 will be rwd only.

 

A friend has X5 with sport package, which comes with summer performance tires.
He was unable to drive it in the snow...

 

If you live in the south then 2 wheel drive with R compound tires will work for the street but in the northern belt with 4 seasons, AWD is the only way to go bar non. I have owned several high HP cars with and w/o AWD and can tell you without hesitation that AWD is the greatest thing since sliced bread on average roads. AWD is so nice for cornering,

 

While for sure AWD would turn in better 0-60mph times, and probably sell more cars - I for one hope they don't ruin the car with it. Other manufactures have caved and made their performance cars AWD only in some cases, and eliminated manual transmissions in the quest for faster 0-60 times and more sales. This adds weight, and mostly caters to posers who commute in the cars and don't really use them for what they are intended for in the first place. There is less driver involvement, and much less steering feel when you add awd to a car. Plus you have a harder time controlling the car at the limit when you lose rwd, not to mention the ability to do a nice burnout and chirp the tires when you want too. In most cases, awd cars understeer - unless you have the rare car with the trick torque vectoring rear differential which will help rotate the rear under power in the corners.

Keep the V3 RWD with a Manual trans for enthusiasts IMO.

However, I realize most people probably do not use their V like I do....it is stictly a car I take out for when I want to really have a nice drive, or take to the track. I drive it probably only 6-8 times a month, never in the rain or snow. I am always going to have it, sort of like my 2004 GTO that I bought new and now has 14k miles on it.

I love the HP war going on with manufactures now, its a great time to be a car enthusiast - I just wish it did not result in a bunch of cars that are fast, but not really as fun to drive as they used to be with rwd and manual transmissions. The quest for the fastest 0-60 is ridding the world of rwd and manual trans sedans.

I like awd, I have had two Infiniti G35x cars I leased, and a 2006 Mazdaspeed 6 which was manual trans only and was an absolute blast to commute in, especially in the snow when I put snow tires on it. For an everyday driver, awd is great - just not what I want in a car with more sporting intentions.

 

I'd like AWD, simply because of our winters...but RWD is definitely the better platform if entertainment is your thing.

Really I think that 0-60 times are the scourge of the automotive world. It's the most childish for of comparison - it's just about beating the next douchebag at the traffic light. (Closely followed by 1/4 mile times. I can't believe how many people suggest I go to the drag strip. No interest).

The wonderful thing about the V, is how well it drives when it matters to me: in the twisties and when it's being driven.

AMG really did it right with the 2014 E63. That setup is light, has almost no drivetrain loss, and doesn't mess with the RWD bias. I really want one.

 

I can almost guarantee the lack of an awd option on the v sport is a very temporary thing otherwise there goes more lost opportunity to bite into the 550xi xdrive and e550 4 matic.

I think the moral of the story here is options.

Offer the v3 in RWD with either an auto or a manual
Offer awd as an option and for God's sake don't take the manual option away if I go awd.

Enthusiasts up north that use their cars year round will choose the awd manual.

 

I live in the desert and I would choose the AWD manual option. I had wheelspin at 70 MPH the other day, that shit gets real old. My last car was a Subaru STi with AWD, and that car is faster than the CTS-V around the nurburgring. It was sharp, precise, and you had traction no matter what you did. The way that car lets you blast out of apexes is almost unbelievable. A CTS-V with a good, performance-based AWD system like the one in the E63 AMG would be a mind-blowingly good car.

 

A CTS-V with a good, performance-based AWD system like the one in the E63 AMG would be a mind-blowingly good car.

No doubt. I'd be on board with that even though I have come to appreciate the fun one can have with RWD. Steering with your right foot FTW.....but I'd sure love to be able not to liquify tires on launch.

And +1 on a manual with AWD. WTF with car makers not offering manual with their AWD offerings? That's just wrong from my enthusiast's point of view. (Yes, I understand the economic argument for avoiding this combination....) Now that I'm dailying a MT car again, it feels so effortless I don't even think while I'm shifting anymore, it's all automatic.

 

If the next V remains under $90k loaded, I'm in.
I just hope they don't do what Nissan did with the GT-R and jump up over $100k.
If so, I see AMG in my future...

 

You have to remember, AWD cars of today don't lose much of that RWD feel, becuase most of the time in a performance platform there is more power going there anyway. The V3 would be killer in an AWD manaul. Killer. The manual option would set it apart from other sport sedan AWD options as well. I don't regret getting the A6 at all, and would have been fine with either option, but one thing that's nice about the auto in our V2 is not worrying as much about traction. With the AWD and manual, particularly with some kind of launch control, it would just be....killer.

Loaded I don't think the V3 will be much if any under $90,000. Fully loaded the Vsport I think is more than the V2 - $76-78,000, I'm not sure the pricing has been fully released.

Yes at 90k, barring any severe depreciation, on a 1-3 year old car, I'd be looking at an AMG 4 Matic as well.

 

The next V is not going to have AWD no matter what we think so keep on dreaming if that's what you want...

 

If the next V remains under $90k loaded, I'm in.
I just hope they don't do what Nissan did with the GT-R and jump up over $100k.
If so, I see AMG in my future...

At $90k they had better offer tons of incentives. I got my current V2 for $10k less than sticker so if that holds up, I'm in.

 

Well it's not like AWD is an inconceivable concept, CTSes have had an AWD option for a while now, and here's how it would help the CTS-V:

The new 2014 E63 AMG S 4matic wagon can do an easy 11.7 @ 120 MPH, which is faster than the CTS-V. It also does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds which is obviously faster than the CTS-V, but here's the kicker: The new E63 wagon gained a bunch of weight, and now it weighs 4703 lbs. Its HP rating is 577, which gives it a power to weight ratio of 8.2 lbs per HP. The current CTS-V wagon weighs 4400 lbs and has 556 HP, which gives it a power to weight ratio of 7.9 lbs per HP, which means the V2 CTS-V actually has a better power to weight ratio than the new E63.

So try to imagine what AWD could do for the current CTS-V, never mind the V3 which will probably be lighter and have 600+ HP. Performance numbers aren't everything, but I'm just using it as an example to show how much of a difference having traction actually makes. The C7 is an even better example, with 3298 lbs and 460 HP its power to weight ratio is 7.2 lbs per HP but it's only doing 12 flat in testing @ 117 or so, and I'm guessing that's because of the same problem the CTS-V has - lots of power and torque, and 285mm tires on the rear.

Even if it's not AWD, the next V needs something to solve the traction issues, I just think AWD is a good way to go because it offers more benefit than just being able to leave a stop light quickly.

 

AWD drive is optional on the E63 in some markets....

 

Awd is the only way you can get the new e63 in the us. I think that's what made folks wonder if the next cts-v would follow suit.

 

Again, AWD should be an option, if it doesn't interfere with all around performance superiority, but let's quit following and be leaders. We have a winning formula and shouldn't stray from it.

Jud

 

We can only hope. "Historically" Cadillac hasn't been known to be very good at offering very many different combinations of transmissions and driven wheels. See the CTS and even the ATS. We shall see.

----------

You can only get a manual with 1 of the 3 engines in the ats, and you have to go RWD to get it.