Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Motor Trend's January 2006 issue has the STS-V versus the CLS55 and it isn't even close.

STS-V
0-60 4.8
0-100 11.9
1/4 Mile [email protected]
60-120 13.3
100-140 15.7
130-0 553 ft
100-0 317
Skidpad 0.90
mpg 17

CLS55
0-60 4.3
0-100 9.8
1/4 Mile [email protected]
60-120 9.7
100-140 10.4
130-0 546 ft
100-0 320
Skidpad 0.91
mpg 18
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
That's not so good... :mad:

.8 seconds at 114MPH is about 133 feet :thepan:

the 3.6 second differential in the race from 60-120 makes me wonder just what the hell the engineers were basing the design / performance requirements for this car on... :annoyed:

Side note: Did they mention any axle tramp / wheel hop?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
CaddyGeek said:
That's not so good... :mad:

.8 seconds at 114MPH is about 133 feet :thepan:

the 3.6 second differential in the race from 60-120 makes me wonder just what the hell the engineers were basing the design / performance requirements for this car on... :annoyed:

Side note: Did they mention any axle tramp / wheel hop?
Like I said on the other thread, it is hard to make 4.6 liters run like 5.5.

On the positive side they said the new 6 speed tranny is great. No mention of wheel hop. Perhaps the 4376 lb weight cures that along with the Pirelli Euphoria tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
If you wanted to pocket $30,000 for a truck you could go with this:

300C SRT8

0-60 4.9
0-100 11.7
1/4 Mile [email protected]
100-0 317
Skidpad 0.88


It looks like the STS launches a little harder. It has a 6 speed transmission and 275s on the rear. But the 300 catches and passes it - all for $30,000 less.
 

·
Registered
CTS-V
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
MCaesar said:
Motor Trend's January 2006 issue has the STS-V versus the CLS55 and it isn't even close.

STS-V
0-60 4.8
0-100 11.9
1/4 Mile [email protected]
60-120 13.3
100-140 15.7
130-0 553 ft
100-0 317
Skidpad 0.90
mpg 17

CLS55
0-60 4.3
0-100 9.8
1/4 Mile [email protected]
60-120 9.7
100-140 10.4
130-0 546 ft
100-0 320
Skidpad 0.91
mpg 18
I have to say I'm dissapointed in the numbers but I'll wait until more reviews come out. Lately the auto magazines have come out with very different perfromance results for the same cars.

Although, the hp/lb ratios for the STS-V and CTS-V are very close, and [email protected] in the 1/4 is about what the CTS-V runs... damn... :(
 

·
Registered
'04V, '05V, '06SRT8, '10V, '13ZL1, '12 V, '16 Z06 SC757
Joined
·
6,440 Posts
I can very easily see joining the SRT-8 family. The numbers for the Jeep are nothing short of incredible. The 300C carries 5 in luxury. The Charger for the boy racers. The Magnum for the soccer dads (some moms too) and finally the SRT-10 for when you want to carry 12 bags of mulch home at say 135mph.

Pretty compelling vehicles at even more compelling prices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
CVP33 said:
I can very easily see joining the SRT-8 family. The numbers for the Jeep are nothing short of incredible. The 300C carries 5 in luxury. The Charger for the boy racers. The Magnum for the soccer dads (some moms too) and finally the SRT-10 for when you want to carry 12 bags of mulch home at say 135mph.

Pretty compelling vehicles at even more compelling prices.
I think most people will have a hard time justifying a STS-V for $77K when they can get a Chrysler 300C SRT8 with the same performance for $30K less or a CTS-V with better performance and a stick for $30K less.

They should have used a blown LS2 and just worked on good engine mounts for more smoothness.

The 4.6 is too small to play in the league of the E55 and M5
 

·
Registered
1999 Black and Tan STS
Joined
·
753 Posts
I still think they'll sell all they build. It's the car I want to buy in 2 years definitely, for 25 grand less with depreciation.
 

·
Registered
CTS-V
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
MCaesar said:
I think most people will have a hard time justifying a STS-V for $77K when they can get a Chrysler 300C SRT8 with the same performance for $30K less or a CTS-V with better performance and a stick for $30K less.
I can't see anyone considering the 300C SRT-8 over and STS-V for performance or price. Just like a person looking for an M5 or E55 won't try to save some money by getting an STS-V.

They should have put the XV12 (maybe add TT's) into it, along with AWD and charged around $90K for it. That car would have dominated the AMG's, M5, and Audi RS6-S8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Vrocks said:
I can't see anyone considering the 300C SRT-8 over and STS-V for performance or price. Just like a person looking for an M5 or E55 won't try to save some money by getting an STS-V.

They should have stuffed the XV12 (maybe add TT's) into it, along with AWD and charged around $90K for it. That car would have dominated the AMG's, M5, and Audi RS6-S8.
They might consider the V if offered equivalent performance for 30k less! Plus, the status diff between Caddy and Chrysler is not nearly as large as the diff between the Germans and Caddy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
851 Posts
MCaesar said:
Motor Trend's January 2006 issue has the STS-V versus the CLS55 and it isn't even close.

STS-V
0-60 4.8
0-100 11.9
1/4 Mile [email protected]
60-120 13.3
100-140 15.7
130-0 553 ft
100-0 317
Skidpad 0.90
mpg 17

CLS55
0-60 4.3
0-100 9.8
1/4 Mile [email protected]
60-120 9.7
100-140 10.4
130-0 546 ft
100-0 320
Skidpad 0.91
mpg 18
Hi MCeasar,
Motor Trend Mag. is known to be the Cadillac unfriendliest magazin and there are the numbers. I´ll wait to see the numbers of Road & Track!

Harry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Vrocks said:
I can't see anyone considering the 300C SRT-8 over and STS-V for performance or price. Just like a person looking for an M5 or E55 won't try to save some money by getting an STS-V.

They should have put the XV12 (maybe add TT's) into it, along with AWD and charged around $90K for it. That car would have dominated the AMG's, M5, and Audi RS6-S8.
While I could not have afforded an STS-V, if I could have I still would have traded my CTS-V for an 06 300C SRT-8. I think you are flattering Caddy by thinking that a Caddy owner would not go to Chrysler. What other Caddy has ever been in the $77k price range except the XLR? The answer is none, so Caddy has no previous customer base in that price range. I can see a Mercedes customer sticking to their brand. Performance, price, and name brand sell cars, and right now Caddy's name is not near what it used to be> So there is 3 strikes going against it. Still trying to figure out how bone stock 300C SRT-8's were running in the 12's weighing just about the same as the STS-V and the STS-V having 44 more HP. There has to be some Mega drivetrain loss there. I whole-heartedly expected the STS-V to be a 12.5 @ 114mph car just based on CTS-V and 300C SRT-8 numbers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
851 Posts
GNSCOTT said:
While I could not have afforded an STS-V, if I could have I still would have traded my CTS-V for an 06 300C SRT-8. I think you are flattering Caddy by thinking that a Caddy owner would not go to Chrysler. What other Caddy has ever been in the $77k price range except the XLR? The answer is none, so Caddy has no previous customer base in that price range. I can see a Mercedes customer sticking to their brand. Performance, price, and name brand sell cars, and right now Caddy's name is not near what it used to be> So there is 3 strikes going against it. Still trying to figure out how bone stock 300C SRT-8's were running in the 12's weighing just about the same as the STS-V and the STS-V having 44 more HP. There has to be some Mega drivetrain loss there. I whole-heartedly expected the STS-V to be a 12.5 @ 114mph car just based on CTS-V and 300C SRT-8 numbers.
Hi GNSCOTT,
what I just said a post before, don`t give the Motor Trend mag too much trust in their numbers. You are right, with 40 more horses and the six speed automatic the numbers should be better and I think they gona be better.
Wait for Road & Track! The biuld-quality and materials of the STS are far better than of the Chrysler 300.
Harry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
GNSCOTT said:
While I could not have afforded an STS-V, if I could have I still would have traded my CTS-V for an 06 300C SRT-8. I think you are flattering Caddy by thinking that a Caddy owner would not go to Chrysler. What other Caddy has ever been in the $77k price range except the XLR? The answer is none, so Caddy has no previous customer base in that price range. I can see a Mercedes customer sticking to their brand. Performance, price, and name brand sell cars, and right now Caddy's name is not near what it used to be> So there is 3 strikes going against it. Still trying to figure out how bone stock 300C SRT-8's were running in the 12's weighing just about the same as the STS-V and the STS-V having 44 more HP. There has to be some Mega drivetrain loss there. I whole-heartedly expected the STS-V to be a 12.5 @ 114mph car just based on CTS-V and 300C SRT-8 numbers.
It is very easy to figure out. The 6.1 liter hemi was purposely underrated by Chrysler. If you run the 1/4 mile calculator programs on it you will see that. The 300C SRT8 hits 108+ in the 1/4 and weighs 4,190 pounds.

Further, most of the stock ones have been dynoed at ~370 RWHP. If you use a 20% drivetrain loss for an automatic that would give you 444 HP.

Lastly, the SRT8 has consistently run the same times as the GTo which is 400 pounds lighter and allegedly only down 25 HP.

now consider that the STS-V weights 150 pounds more and it starts to add up

Also consider the STS MT tested may have been pre-production.

I use Car & Driver as the best barometer by far
 

·
Registered
CTS-V
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
MCaesar said:
They might consider the V if offered equivalent performance for 30k less! Plus, the status diff between Caddy and Chrysler is not nearly as large as the diff between the Germans and Caddy.
I myself and a lot of people I know consider Cadillac to be clearly out of Chryslers league. They put the old MB transmissions in some of the new cars but MB isn't know for drivetrain greatness. The Chrysler SUV's (Jeeps)? Biggest pieces of junk on the road. <--- period. Talk about shit box transmissions and a crappy ride, Jeeps take the cake.

The euro cars like BMW and MB are over rated. Before I could even drive my family had several MB (S, transmission failure) and BMW's(7's, 5's electronic time bombs). Every model we owned had several problems, especially the BMW's. The MB were smooth but they handled like boats (and they still don't feel very good to this day, while the BMW's are excellent). If the STS-V could match the speed of an E55 I'd definitely purchase the STS-V.
 

·
Registered
CTS-V
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
harryctsv said:
Hi MCeasar,
Motor Trend Mag. is known to be the Cadillac unfriendliest magazin and there are the numbers. I´ll wait to see the numbers of Road & Track!

Harry
yep. It should be closer but I doubt the V will win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Vrocks said:
I myself and a lot of people I know consider Cadillac to be clearly out of Chryslers league. They put the old MB transmissions in some of the new cars but MB isn't know for drivetrain greatness. The Chrysler SUV's (Jeeps)? Biggest pieces of junk on the road. <--- period. Talk about shit box transmissions and a crappy ride, Jeeps take the cake.

The euro cars like BMW and MB are over rated. Before I could even drive my family had several MB (S, transmission failure) and BMW's(7's, 5's electronic time bombs). Every model we owned had several problems, especially the BMW's. The MB were smooth but they handled like boats (and they still don't feel very good to this day, while the BMW's are excellent). If the STS-V could match the speed of an E55 I'd definitely purchase the STS-V.
I think you are mistaken what I believe versus what I believe general public opinion to be. The reliablity and build quality on MBs is no better than Cadillac - if as good. But the status of owning one of those is much higher for most people and that counts a lot.

the V doesn't even have to be as fast as the E55 but it has to be a lot closer than it was in this test where basically the MB walked away from it.

Hopefully GM is at work designing a 5.5 liter version of the Northstar with a bigger block to compete with BMW and MB
 

·
Registered
CTS-V
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
MCaesar said:
I think you are mistaken what I believe versus what I believe general public opinion to be. The reliablity and build quality on MBs is no better than Cadillac - if as good. But the status of owning one of those is much higher for most people and that counts a lot.

the V doesn't even have to be as fast as the E55 but it has to be a lot closer than it was in this test where basically the MB walked away from it.

Hopefully GM is at work designing a 5.5 liter version of the Northstar with a bigger block to compete with BMW and MB
MB's status is declining, even in the eyes of the moderately knowledagble consumer. I don't even consider MB to be a staus car, I simply see them as very fast cars. I also don't purchase cars on their percieved status, I go by past expereinces (back 5 - 10 years, so I will try something again even if it was bad the first time. But that hurts Cadillac because current BMW and MB aged buyers grew up when GM and Caddy sucked for 20+ years), looks, materials, panel gaps and alignment / fit and finish.

If Chrysler offered a car that was good looking, great on the road, fast, and the build quality was excellent I'd consider the car, even if it was $77K (I would lease it because the depreciation right off the lot would be terrible due to the brands current perception. A few more cars like that would change things in a hurry.).

I think you are mistaken what I believe versus what I believe general public opinion to be.
I thought it was your opinion, sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
Top