New CTS-V=BEAST!!!!

[roosterjuicer]

2009 Cadillac CTS-V: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V Specs Made Official, Gets 556 HP

Booya 556hp!

[Ferrer]

The title is slightly misleading...

[roosterjuicer]

yeah i totally gutterballed that. the weird thing is that i caught myself doing it the first time and deleted it before i posted...but then i got sidetracked and retyped it wrong again haha.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

The title is slightly misleading...

I had a feeling it may be by monaro or rooster or someone like that.

Consider that the only reason it has that figure is because it utilities forced induction.

Wait until the RS6 comes out with around 580 horsies and all wheel drive.

Booya!

Anyways, I quite like the CTS-V and respect what Cadillac has done.

Thread titles like these however sorta bother me.

[roosterjuicer]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Consider that the only reason it has that figure is because it utilities forced induction.

Wait until the RS6 comes out with around 580 horsies and all wheel drive.

Consider that the only reason the Bugatti Veyron has 1000+hp is because it utilizes forced induction...Its a stupid argument dont try to make it. who cares how a car makes power as long as it makes it.

I will wait for the rs6 and it will loose

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

Consider that the only reason the Bugatti Veyron has 1000+hp is because it utilizes forced induction...Its a stupid argument dont try to make it. who cares how a car makes power as long as it makes it.

I will wait for the rs6 and it will loose

Who's talking about the Veyron?

I'm not certain that the RS6 will win but I don't have blind faith unlike you - you have just stated that the RS6 will lose. I don't know, and frankly I don't have a vested interest. I don't want the RS6 to win because it's European, or the CTS-V to lose because it's American - I think the same can not be said about you - you want the CTS-V to win because it is American I would guess.

My point regarding forced induction was simply that it managed to beat a car like the M5 because it has forced induction, so I do care about how it makes it's power. I also tend to prefer natural aspiration as I see it is more pure, elegant, and I don't really like the sound of supercharger whine.

That being said, of the RS6, M5 and CTS-V, I would have to see how they handled first to make a decision, but without knowing how they handle, I'd go with the CTS-V because it is powerful, fat, and the best looking of the bunch.

So while you wait for the RS6 to lose, I await an interesting and hopefully well matched battle between what I consider 3 cars each with their own advantages and disadvantages.

[digitalcraft]

I generally don't like Cadillac style, but this car isn't too bad looking. And yeah, quite a monster in the horsepower department. Unfortunately, quite a lot of weight too: 4250lb.

[Rockefella]

I'm not one to toot America's horn, but this new CTS-V seriously is, a beast. Forced induction or not, 562hp with 551 lb. ft. of torque. BMW, Audi, and Mercedes may not show it, but I know they're worried.

Now I'll allow the Europeans to enter conversation and explain to me how the CTS is a shit car.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Rockefella

Now I'll allow the Europeans to enter conversation and explain to me how the CTS is a shit car.

First of all, this CTS-V is going to be a beast.

But the thing is Cadillacs simply aren't suited to European needs.

First there's the engine. The base is a 2.8-litre six cylinder when some rivals end their offerings there. That means that while it has respectable power it uses a lot of petrol. 11,8l/100km (20mpg US) to be exact and that's a lot. If you compare to the base 520i or E 200K they get 6,7l/100km (35mpg US) and 8,2l/100km (29mpg US) respectively. Considering our prices that's very relevant.

Then there's the weight. The Cadillac weights 1840kg which is a lot compared to the Mercedes-Benz (1585kg) and the BMW (1535kg). That means that despite the power advantage (40bhp over the BMW and almost 30bhp over the Benz) the CTS isn't that much faster. It's just 4 tenths of a second faster than the 5-series and 8 tenths faster than the E-class to 100km/h (62mph). And the Merc has a much higher top speed, 236km/h (147mph) versus 225km/h (140mph).

And while the E200 K costs about 3.000€ more than the CTS 2.8, the BMW is actually cheaper by about 1.000€. Couple all that to the fact that Cadillac has no brand image in Europe whatsoever and it's not hard to see why they aren't selling any.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

Then there's the weight. The Cadillac weights 1840kg which is a lot compared to the Mercedes-Benz (1585kg) and the BMW (1535kg). That means that despite the power advantage (40bhp over the BMW and almost 30bhp over the Benz) the CTS isn't that much faster. It's just 4 tenths of a second faster than the 5-series and 8 tenths faster than the E-class to 100km/h (62mph). And the Merc has a much higher top speed, 236km/h (147mph) versus 225km/h (140mph).

Interesting information.

I would however disagree that 4 tenths and 8 tenths is not much faster however.

The surprising thing is the vast disparity in fuel economy.

Isn't the CTS gonna have a diesel engine in the future however? It almost seems vain as I think it'll be hard for the Caddy to get the cachet that the other two companies have.

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

First of all, this CTS-V is going to be a beast.

But the thing is Cadillacs simply aren't suited to European needs.

First there's the engine. The base is a 2.8-litre six cylinder when some rivals end their offerings there. That means that while it has respectable power it uses a lot of petrol. 11,8l/100km (20mpg US) to be exact and that's a lot. If you compare to the base 520i or E 200K they get 6,7l/100km (35mpg US) and 8,2l/100km (29mpg US) respectively. Considering our prices that's very relevant.

I think those mpg estimates you have may be so far apart because of British/Euro to American gallon measurements. Cars like the Toyota Corolla here have trouble getting 35 mpg, but some Euro estimates for cars have them making 50+. Also, I think since you guys have much better petrol, the CTS-V's gas mileage may increase a couple digits. Our 87 is like you're 95 octane.

Then there's the weight. The Cadillac weights 1840kg which is a lot compared to the Mercedes-Benz (1585kg) and the BMW (1535kg). That means that despite the power advantage (40bhp over the BMW and almost 30bhp over the Benz) the CTS isn't that much faster. It's just 4 tenths of a second faster than the 5-series and 8 tenths faster than the E-class to 100km/h (62mph). And the Merc has a much higher top speed, 236km/h (147mph) versus 225km/h (140mph).

Weight isn't an issue for buyers in this segment. They're not buying track cars, they're buying luxury rockets. What they will see in the end is that the CTS is a couple of tenths faster. If the driving dynamics are there, which I think they will, buyers will be interested.

And while the E200 K costs about 3.000€ more than the CTS 2.8, the BMW is actually cheaper by about 1.000€. Couple all that to the fact that Cadillac has no brand image in Europe whatsoever and it's not hard to see why they aren't selling any.

Brand image will definitey be the Cadillac's demise in Europe, but this current CTS and CTS-V should pioneer a new era of GM respect in places outside of America. The CTS is a good car, but people have trouble looking past American history to throw away the stereotype. Also, $3000 isn't much when taking into account the MSRP and available options on all cars.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Rockefella

I think those mpg estimates you have may be so far apart because of British/Euro to American gallon measurements. Cars like the Toyota Corolla here have trouble getting 35 mpg, but some Euro estimates for cars have them making 50+. Also, I think since you guys have much better petrol, the CTS-V's gas mileage may increase a couple digits. Our 87 is like you're 95 octane.

All the figures are for European-spec cars.

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

All the figures are for European-spec cars.

Are the BMW and Mercedes diesel variants?

EDIT: According to Edmunds the DI V6 gets 17 city / 26 highway, on the American gallon. In Imperial thats about 20/30.

[Zytek_Fan]

I don't like it because it's a Cadillac.
There's no denying it's a beast, but I don't like it one bit.

I'd much rather get a slightly used BMW E39 M5 and get a Dinan S package for it

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Rockefella

Are the BMW and Mercedes diesel variants?

EDIT: According to Edmunds the DI V6 gets 17 city / 26 highway, on the American gallon. In Imperial thats about 20/30.

Nope, all three were the base petrol models.