First Look: Cadillac CTS V-series

[mfuller]

Some of the highlights:

400HP LS6 V8
Tremec T-56 6-speed gearbox (only gearbox available)
Brembo brakes w/ 14" rotors
Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar run-flat tires (245/45R18)

Cadillac plans an annual build of 5000 units, at a price of about 50 large. Start saving now; this car should give any of it's competitors (BMW M5, Audi S4, M-B C32 AMG) a good run.

[MJE95GAGT]

damn......LS6 in a Caddy......cant beat that, good combo of luxury and raw power

[Sternie]

very nice.. should have no problem takin out an s4, c32 amg, and probably an m5 (just looked at their #s quick).

[badassgrandam99]

i actually beat ya on the picture matt... http://www.grandamgt.com/forum/showt...threadid=13139

...but you got info i didn't...

[Static]

My new dream car...

[RAMAIRGT1]

you will need all of that 400hp to move that boat

[badassgrandam99]

Originally posted by RAMAIRGT1
you will need all of that 400hp to move that boat

... it's not the Deville bro... the CTS isn't that big...

[SpyhunteR]

Originally posted by Sternie
very nice.. should have no problem takin out an s4, c32 amg, and probably an m5 (just looked at their #s quick).

I'm going to retort and say that the s4 can be damn fast... wait and see what this puts down

[dearim]

I hate to say it (and will probably get flamed for doing so), but I really think they oughta put in an automatic or an automanual like the Tiptronic as an option. Some of us prefer to go shift-free for our primary vehicles.

Other than that, they finally have a CTS I'd buy (if I ever won the lottery, that is).

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally posted by SpyhunteR
I'm going to retort and say that the s4 can be damn fast... wait and see what this puts down

Yeah, it'll be interesting seeng a car with 60 more hp, 100 ft lbs more torque, and most likely weighs less (I'd be willing to bet that the old DOHC v6 is somewhat similar in weight to the LS6) lose to an S4. AWD might help it in the beginning, but not for long after that, most likely b4 reaching even 60 mph.

I'm thinking this will be in the area between the M5 and the RS6, faster than the M5 and slower than the RS6, which is impressive. I bet it will handle better than the RS6 too if they tune it like they did the original CTS. All the reviewers said the Caddy handles better than the BMWs and everything already, but has less power making it hard to keep up. Now it has much more power (almost double the old V6 power), and big Brembos to slow it down, should be an interesting test drive to say the least.

[Sternie]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
Yeah, it'll be interesting seeng a car with 60 more hp, 100 ft lbs more torque, and most likely weighs less (I'd be willing to bet that the old DOHC v6 is somewhat similar in weight to the LS6) lose to an S4. AWD might help it in the beginning, but not for long after that, most likely b4 reaching even 60 mph.

I'm thinking this will be in the area between the M5 and the RS6, faster than the M5 and slower than the RS6, which is impressive. I bet it will handle better than the RS6 too if they tune it like they did the original CTS. All the reviewers said the Caddy handles better than the BMWs and everything already, but has less power making it hard to keep up. Now it has much more power (almost double the old V6 power), and big Brembos to slow it down, should be an interesting test drive to say the least.

Audi S4 curb weight - 3660 - 3792 lbs. depending on options I guess?
Caddy CTS-V curb weight - 3,847 lbs

Pretty similar weight for a car that will have +60hp and +100 tq. over the S4 (like you pointed out). My money is on the CTS-V.

[Mike3800]

I will say the CTS is a step in the right direction but it costs more than it's competition.

I think it's great sticking the Z06 engine in the Caddy. Here's an idea. Stick the Z06 engine in the GTO since the Mustang Cobra so insulted the demise of the F-body, how about a little revenge?

[Panacea]

Originally posted by Mike3800
I will say the CTS is a step in the right direction but it costs more than it's competition.

I think it's great sticking the Z06 engine in the Caddy. Here's an idea. Stick the Z06 engine in the GTO since the Mustang Cobra so insulted the demise of the F-body, how about a little revenge?

Nah, why would you think they'd do something logical like that? I mean come on, we want Grandpa to be the fastest Geezer at the home...

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally posted by Mike3800
I will say the CTS is a step in the right direction but it costs more than it's competition.

I think it's great sticking the Z06 engine in the Caddy. Here's an idea. Stick the Z06 engine in the GTO since the Mustang Cobra so insulted the demise of the F-body, how about a little revenge?

I'm pretty sure they are slating the LS6 to be an option engine on the GTO, if not the first year it's out then the second year.

I'd also say that $50 grand is a decent price for the segment. The S4, S/C AMG 3.2, and M3 run about that much I think, and the M5 is a bit more. I think the CTS-v should be able to outhandle them all too, except maybe the M3, that thing is light and powerful.

[Mike3800]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
I'm pretty sure they are slating the LS6 to be an option engine on the GTO, if not the first year it's out then the second year.

I'd also say that $50 grand is a decent price for the segment. The S4, S/C AMG 3.2, and M3 run about that much I think, and the M5 is a bit more. I think the CTS-v should be able to outhandle them all too, except maybe the M3, that thing is light and powerful.

The CTS is outpowered/power to weight by the more expensive cars (BMW M5 390HP 399Ft.Lbs, Mercedes E55 AMG 469HP 516Ft.Lbs, Audi RS6 450HP 415Ft.Lbs ), but the S4, M3 and the like cost about 10,000$ less. So I guess it depends upon what one would consider it's competition.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally posted by Mike3800
The CTS is outpowered/power to weight by the more expensive cars (BMW M5 390HP 399Ft.Lbs, Mercedes E55 AMG 469HP 516Ft.Lbs, Audi RS6 450HP 415Ft.Lbs ), but the S4, M3 and the like cost about 10,000$ less. So I guess it depends upon what one would consider it's competition.

Well lemme just dissect this and you'll see the problem with your statement.

The M5 has 5 less horsepower than the CTS-v is slated to have, and the torque is 368 ft-lbs, not 399 (where did you get that from? The LS6 has 400 ft-lbs tho) and it weighs over 4000 lbs which would give it a worse power to weight ratio, and it costs 65-70 grand, a lot more than 50 grand.

The RS6 better have damn good power considering it weighs a lot and has twin turbos and wil cost over 80 grand.

The E55 AMG also better have damn good performance with a better power/weight ratio due to a supercharger and it also costs almost 80 grand. How about buy a CTS-v as supercharge it? Or you could do a sweet N/A tune, either way with an LS* engine under the hood the aftermarket opened up is HUGE.

Coming down to it's price range, yes the M3 may have a better performance, well lemme think here, yeah, it's a coupe and has NO room inside, a pure performance vehicle, while the CTS-v is a luxury sedan, two totally different cars. And how about that fact that the M3 doesn't even have leather for all that money?

And the S4 will lose to the CTS-v if all the laws of physics hold true since the CTS-v will have a better power to weight ratio, especially when the S4 is in AWD form. In that case it might, I emphasize MIGHT, get a better launch but should putter out to the CTS-v after that. But the CTS-v will have almost 100 ft-lbs more torque and over 50 more hp and it costs about $45,000.

I really think the CTS-v has no competition because there is no other car in the price segment that is a luxury performance sedan that can hang with the BMWs without the power or price, and with power should be able to layeth the smackdown on BMWs, but that is all speculation as of now.

[Mike3800]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
The M5 has 5 less horsepower than the CTS-v is slated to have, and the torque is 368 ft-lbs, not 399 (where did you get that from? The LS6 has 400 ft-lbs tho) and it weighs over 4000 lbs which would give it a worse power to weight ratio, and it costs 65-70 grand, a lot more than 50 grand.

I was incorrect on my statment of the torque of the M5, but it weighs 3995Lbs. I'd still put my money on the BMW for being faster, Car and Driver ragazine got it to run a 13.4 in the 1/4 mile.

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
The RS6 better have damn good power considering it weighs a lot and has twin turbos and wil cost over 80 grand.

You expect 450HP and twin turbos for and estimated price of 82,000. 4229LBS isn't that much 450HP and 415Ft.Lbs of torque.

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
The E55 AMG also better have damn good performance with a better power/weight ratio due to a supercharger and it also costs almost 80 grand. How about buy a CTS-v as supercharge it? Or you could do a sweet N/A tune, either way with an LS* engine under the hood the aftermarket opened up is HUGE.

That's my biggest pet peev. People saying "it's cheating because it's supercharged".. no... the car manufact was just smarter to use a power adder from the get go. I'd never do much to modify a 50 - 80K$ car (as if I could buy a car in this segment and still live in a house) and neither would 99% of people. No matter how you look at it the CTS is severley outpowered by the RS6.

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
Coming down to it's price range, yes the M3 may have a better performance, well lemme think here, yeah, it's a coupe and has NO room inside, a pure performance vehicle, while the CTS-v is a luxury sedan, two totally different cars. And how about that fact that the M3 doesn't even have leather for all that money?

It's also LESS EXPENSIVE than the big boat CTS and not really in it's class. That's my point and that's why my statment is still correct. The cars that are slower than the CTS or equal to the CTS are ALL less expensive than the CTS. Compact luxury sedans are all less expensive and the larger ones are all more expensive but almost all of them are faster etc...

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
And the S4 will lose to the CTS-v if all the laws of physics hold true since the CTS-v will have a better power to weight ratio, especially when the S4 is in AWD form. In that case it might, I emphasize MIGHT, get a better launch but should putter out to the CTS-v after that. But the CTS-v will have almost 100 ft-lbs more torque and over 50 more hp and it costs about $45,000.

AWD is a good thing and it's 5 grand less. At 3394 lbs... I'd put my money on the S4 in the 1/4 mile. Besides, most people don't buy these cars to race down the 1/4 mile. AWD all season traction and still stellar handling with over 300HP? Nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
I really think the CTS-v has no competition because there is no other car in the price segment that is a luxury performance sedan that can hang with the BMWs without the power or price, and with power should be able to layeth the smackdown on BMWs, but that is all speculation as of now.

Caddy is more compedative now than ever before, but for laying smackdown? It's gonna take more than digging up parts from other cars in the GM lineup to make that CTS the sports sedan for real to lay the smackdown on legendary cars like the BMW etc... but they are getting closer. How about AWD? How about an engine that weighs less than the LS6 but puts out more power because of a power adder? Just like with Hyundai doing seemingly impressive things now, Caddilac has a ways to go before it is proven and before people recognize it if it indeed becomes proven.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Mike what ****es me off about you is that you always ask for more. I have never seen someone like you sit there and keep asking for more beef when your already stuffed. I mean 400 hp and you consider it "severely underpowered" to the RS6?? What are YOU SMOKING??

Well do the math it's not that much more power for a car that is 400 lbs heavier and $30,000 more.

I especially like the fact that you call the CTS-v a "boat" seeing as how it is lighter than any of the other cars mentioned by A LOT and the original CTS was beating BMWs that are supposidly "superior" in handling to the CTS and have more hp.

I think your bias is getting the best of you, you don't like the look of the car and you're ignoring the facts.

I never said that forced induction was bad or cheating, if you can point out where I EVER said that in ANY of my statements on this thread then I'll eat my words and STFU. Everyone knows how much you love FI and blah blah blah because of the VTP and the GNX, yeah, we all like those engines too, so stop acting like you're defending a "new" concept that FI isn't bad.

But I know I didn't say anything of the sort, I just said that the extra money could be spent on supercharging the CTS-v and cranking out even more serious numbers.

Also, where are you getting your stats?? Seriously, where? Do you really think a DOHC v8 + AWD European Sedan would weight in at anything below 3,500 lbs. Even without AWD it isn't as light as you said. The AWD 350 hp S4 weighs in at above 3800 lbs, and there is no way that would be able to hang with a CTS-v as shown here. Thinking back, the M5 does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, so maybe it is probable that the CTS-v can go faster than that, and I'm pretty sure it can beat 13.4 in the 1/4 mile, making it faster than the M5, but that is all speculation.

Once again, here we go and you're gonna sit there and say blah blah blah about why the CTS-v sux and everything....let's skip all the BS this time and agree to disagree cuz I don't like arguing with someone that uses personal bias and looks over the facts.

[Mike3800]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
Mike what ****es me off about you is that you always ask for more. I have never seen someone like you sit there and keep asking for more beef when your already stuffed. I mean 400 hp and you consider it "severely underpowered" to the RS6?? What are YOU SMOKING??

I laughed for 5 minutes straight when I read that. EDIT... also YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT... I'm one of the many consumers that pushes companies to make better products because I demand more but I don't want to pay more, and I am rarley satisfied. It ALWAYS can be improved. I know the people at GM and other car mfg's feel the same way and that's why things get improved every year. It's not a bad mentality.

Also, Hey... I'm a power junkie what can I say.

I NEVER said the CTS was underpowered, it's faster than almost anything I have ever owned I am sure. Still, my point is that it is still outgunned by the big boys and the comact ones are pertty close and are all less expensive. That doesn't mean I like the other cars more. I'd rather buy a used (all I can afford reasonbly) STS with 300HP and FWD than any of those overpriced snooty cars. Great in all seasons and really, is the road a dragstrip or an autocross anyway? Besides, it's good for mopping up unsuspecting Mustang GT's.

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
I especially like the fact that you call the CTS-v a "boat"

It is when compared to cars like the M3 or Corvette or what have you. It's a sedan. Compare it to an RS6 or a BMW 5-series and it's still al boat like the rest of them. I personally like boats. Better than teeny go cart like cars.

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
I think your bias is getting the best of you, you don't like the look of the car and you're ignoring the facts.

I almost don't know how to respond to that. Yes it's not that good looking from the front. I wouldn't buy it if I could for that reason alone, and with most people looks are a big factor in buying cars, how else do you explain why the weak Mustang GT outsold the LS1 powered Camaro and Trans Am like 3 to 1?

I'm not ignoring the facts, I am just not agreeing with your opinon on the facts.

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
I never said that forced induction was bad or cheating, if you can point out where I EVER said that in ANY of my statements on this thread then I'll eat my words and STFU. Everyone knows how much you love FI and blah blah blah because of the VTP and the GNX, yeah, we all like those engines too, so stop acting like you're defending a "new" concept that FI isn't bad.

What the hell is a VTP? Chill out man. You meantioned that the RS6 had twin turbos and the Caddy didn't. What was your point?

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
But I know I didn't say anything of the sort, I just said that the extra money could be spent on supercharging the CTS-v and cranking out even more serious numbers.

You supercharge any car and it will improve it's performance unless it's already superchaged to begin with. Everyone knows that so I am missing your point still.

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
Also, where are you getting your stats?? Seriously, where?

Websites, car rags, the auto manufacturers' website. You want me to post links?

You should really calm down. You are making me laugh though since you are taking it so personal. It's just an overpriced car (not just the CTS) that I know you or I probbably can't buy. Relax.

[Mike3800]

Things like this bother me.

http://www.atpturbo.com/turbopiping/...9SRT416PSI.mpg

It shouldn't happen. Now ya see why I am so "power hungry?"

BTW that other car is a Z06 in case you didn't notice.