First Full Road Test: Cadillac CTS-V

From Car and Driver
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2009_cadillac_cts_v_road_test

Best times they got were 0-60 in 4.0 and 1/4 in 12.5 @ 116 mph and Top Speed 191 mph.


http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/furious_four_doors/2009_cadillac_cts_v_road_test/2009_cadillac_cts_v/cadcts_v_prince_09_1/1624298-1-eng-US/cadcts_v_prince_09_1_gallery_image_large.jpg

Just NASTY. :yes: :bow:

Helluva job Caddy.

Incredible car, can't give it enough praise... but am I the only one that thinks the standard front end looks nicer?

Mid twelves at 116, and .93 on a skidpad, with four doors, from CADILLAC.

Anyone that says this isn't the height of the performance era, is a retard.

12.5 is kind of a disappointment but the 116 traps are real nice.

12.5 is kind of a disappointment .



From a 4 door Cadillac?

12.5 is kind of a disappointment but the 116 traps are real nice.

Indicates that it doesn't like to get moving from a stop, but it sure as heck digs hard once it finally leaves! :yes:

Truly amazing.

Gonna suck to get blown away by a 4-y/o sleeper 4-dr Caddy when you are cruizing in your 2012 Mustang GT or Camaro -Z28, huh? :yes:

don't you know by now... very few people on this site are ever satisfied with any car. It's a battle to see who can be most cynical, and therefore cool. Get with it :-)

For some reason, the front of this one reminds me of the pre-2008 CTS caddy's.

I like the 2008 front end better.

If they put an LS1 in there it would have gone 12 flat............

[QUOTE=ProudPony;5575839]Indicates that it doesn't like to get moving from a stop, but it sure as heck digs hard once it finally leaves! :yes:

QUOTE]

It is over 4,000lbs which IMO is too heavy for me (even if I could afford it) My GTO is enough Pork.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/09/cadillac-cts-v.html

here has it going 0-60 3.9 1/4 mile 12.0 @ 118 top speed of 193.

when the GT500 supersnake or whatever with 500+ hp and 4000+ lbs went mid 12s @ upper 115+ you guys were making fun of it. 116 traps are very good out of the car. its a shame its so damn heavy. if the car was 400-500 lbs lighter it would be nuts.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/09/cadillac-cts-v.html

here has it going 0-60 3.9 1/4 mile 12.0 @ 118 top speed of 193.
thats more along the lines of what I was thinking it should go

when the GT500 supersnake or whatever with 500+ hp and 4000+ lbs went mid 12s @ upper 115+ you guys were making fun of it. 116 traps are very good out of the car. its a shame its so damn heavy. if the car was 400-500 lbs lighter it would be nuts.

thats more along the lines of what I was thinking it should go

Uh yea, why wouldn't people make fun of a specially built 2 door that has nowhere near the interior or luxury items that this 4 car does and isn't considerably faster?

when you get to the 500hp mark and up, elapsed times have more to do with how the tires hook up on whatever surface you are on. You are battling tire spin vs bogging, but mostly tire spin.

12.5 is kind of a disappointment but the 116 traps are real nice.

A dissappointment?!! Are you kidding!!!!

We're talking about a full sized, 4 door, luxury car not the latest 2 passenger super car, Corvette, or dragster.

Unless I'm mistaken, this puts Cadillac's CTSv in the club of the planet's top accelerating regular production sedans if not in one of the top 2 or 3. It already most likely has the top speed award nailed. :cool:

I dont think you guys get it... it is marginally quicker than the previous car with 150 more hp but its a LOT FASTER than the old car. quicker = ET, faster = mph.

I did not know about the 12.0 @ 118 that caddy posted when I made that post. a half second difference in 1/4 is quite the difference and THAT is in line with what I would have expected from the car. 12.5 to 12.0 is a big difference!

the biggest thing was a similar weight car with similar supercharged power ran a similar time and all of you bashed it. if that car and this car lined up, ran the same exact ET & mph, you would consider the caddy "more impressive" because its a 4 door cadillac. I say both ETs suck for the trap and we're getting to the point where more power isn't helping out, its hurting acceleration. can't do much about it though. can't equip the cars with drag radials from the factory. I hope the rear is strong in these cars. I want to see one running mid 11s bone stock with drag radials or slicks. it has the power to do it.

I too expected it to be a bit quicker (and trap faster) than this. Perhaps the auto version will do better? Not to say it isn't flying; I'd just hoped it would be a bit more ground breaking (well, it certainly is ground breaking for that price...)

With 56 hp more than the M5 and an assload more torque, I was hoping for upper 11x times.

The CTS isn't a full size car, as far as I can tell. And I agree that the stock CTS front end looks better, though this one still looks damn good. The wheels are not my favorite, either.

Overall, though, it is still an amazing car. It is just a little sobering to see that with all that sick horsepower, the car runs times that are more or less equivalent to an LS2 / LS3 Corvette. 4300 lbs is a lot for a car of that size (more than my old body on frame, B-body 9C1 Caprice...).

Still, way to go Caddy. :metal: :cool:

Sticky Mickeys will help it out of the hole, but will the IRS hold up to 4000rpm clutch dumps. The auto with a converter should be a real monster.

12.5 is kind of a disappointment but the 116 traps are real nice.

Let's see you get below 12.5 in ANY car without Drag Radials. Some people don't understand what it takes to get a good quarter mile time. 60ft is where it is at and i'd like to see what they did get on their 60ft.

116mph traps!!! wow

Throw a 4000 rpm Yank/Vig converter / Drag Radials and watch this thing run 11s from the factory.

I'm impressed!!!!!!!!!

It is over 4,000lbs which IMO is too heavy for me (even if I could afford it) My GTO is enough Pork.

Isn't the CTS coupe supposed to have a "V" model? The couple should be quite a bit lighter if you like the idea of a 2-door.

I too thought that the CTS-V would be abit quicker in the 1/4 mile - but man-oh-man, this car rocks. It looks so totally badass and I just love the interior.

Is this my next car?

I'd still get a stick - even if the auto is a hair quicker.

Isn't the CTS coupe supposed to have a "V" model? The couple should be quite a bit lighter if you like the idea of a 2-door.

Coupe doesn't automatically mean lighter than sedans of the same model.

In the case of the CTS coupe, don't expect to see it weigh notable less than the sedan.... it might even be a smidgon heavier.

With the power that car has and the weight it needs to move 12.5 @116 is very impressive. Traction is a limiting factor and the trap speed says there is lower ET's in it. Cool days, good driver and DR's this car can touch 11's.
The very cool thing about this 4-door Caddy is that it has sub 8 min Ring performance too. It's not a one trick pony. I've always said the uber-performance model 4-door luxo sedans were as close to auto perfection as it gets and this one is right in line. Have your cake and eat it too.

Let's see you get below 12.5 in ANY car without Drag Radials. Some people don't understand what it takes to get a good quarter mile time. 60ft is where it is at and i'd like to see what they did get on their 60ft.
I ran that with street tires and a far worse power:weight ratio.

I am a drag racer. my friends are drag racers. I know what it takes to launch a car. 116 traps are great traps but that is a horrible ET for 116 traps. horrible. I wish mags would show 60 foot times. I bet thats a 2.4 60'. do you see what im getting at here? whats the point of making the power if you can't get it to the ground? when you can finally accelerate you're doing highly illegal speeds already.

since GM is rating the car at 12.0 @ 118 I feel confident someone skilled in driving at one of the low DA tracks in eastern PA/md/NJ could get the car in the upper 11s with ease with stock everything.

All of you are too hung up on the ET. Look at the trap its 118 thats an 11 second trap even with 4000 lbs. ET shows what the driver can do, trap speed shows what the CAR can do.

All of you are too hung up on the ET. Look at the trap its 118 thats an 11 second trap even with 4000 lbs. ET shows what the driver can do, trap speed shows what the CAR can do.
are we all supra owners now?

No I didn't take out a loan for $17,000 on a automatic 95 Supra. Only to run a 14.2 and have MASSIVE blow-by on cylinder number 6 and have crappy faded paint..... but my friend did, and I laugh about it almost every day.

Pretty nice. But as some others have commented it's about as impressive as a GT500.

A little heavier a little more hp. Same ET same trap.

"Yeah but it's a luxury 4dr Cadillac"

Yeah and it costs 20 grand more. So what?

Well, at least wheel hop isn't a issue anymore.

Pretty nice. But as some others have commented it's about as impressive as a GT500.

A little heavier a little more hp. Same ET same trap.

"Yeah but it's a luxury 4dr Cadillac"

Yeah and it costs 20 grand more. So what?

Yeah, I'd say we've hit a wall regarding performance. In that for a certain mass (in this case, high mass), no additional amount of power will make much of a difference in acceleration when on street tires.

I dont think you guys get it... it is marginally quicker than the previous car with 150 more hp but its a LOT FASTER than the old car. quicker = ET, faster = mph.

I did not know about the 12.0 @ 118 that caddy posted when I made that post. a half second difference in 1/4 is quite the difference and THAT is in line with what I would have expected from the car. 12.5 to 12.0 is a big difference!

the biggest thing was a similar weight car with similar supercharged power ran a similar time and all of you bashed it. if that car and this car lined up, ran the same exact ET & mph, you would consider the caddy "more impressive" because its a 4 door cadillac. I say both ETs suck for the trap and we're getting to the point where more power isn't helping out, its hurting acceleration. can't do much about it though. can't equip the cars with drag radials from the factory. I hope the rear is strong in these cars. I want to see one running mid 11s bone stock with drag radials or slicks. it has the power to do it.


you get the response you do becuase when you in a camaro and a mustang pulls up next to you, you think to your self this will be a good race. when grama pulls up to you in here 4 door caddy and blows your doors off and your siting there looking like this :eek: . well your a bright guy you get the idea.

the point is your looking a 4 door sedan luxury car most people dont expect them to really preform. on the other hand a mustang is expected to do great things when it has 500 hp.

I ran that with street tires and a far worse power:weight ratio.

...on a prepared launch pad with heavy layers of rubber and VHT on it, after a burn out and at least tens of passes in the car such that you knew exactly how it behaved out of the hole, and also with a real drag race measured start with 1' of roll out until the timer started, with a cooled down engine and tire pressure adjusted just right.

Now consider the magazine time was probably done on a non-prepared surface, with a 5th wheel instant start timer, tires at factory settings, no burn out, some degree of traction control likely enabled, engine at full operating temperature and heat soaked, and only a limited number of tries to get it right.

Almost forgot. Your car also did not have ANY torque management on it, which i am quite sure the CTSv has loads of with that kind of torque in a heavy sedan. That's gonna cut its power at the launch too. TQ management has been hamstringing late model GM cars badly, you have to be real good to get good ETs out of them without having it take over and nanny your ass into frustration.

...on a prepared launch pad with heavy layers of rubber and VHT on it, after a burn out and at least tens of passes in the car such that you knew exactly how it behaved out of the hole, and also with a real drag race measured start with 1' of roll out until the timer started, with a cooled down engine and tire pressure adjusted just right.
island dragway, most people would laugh when they call that place "prepped." it was also my first time out with that setup so I didnt know how it would behave out of the hole. only ran it with drag radials prior, not the sumitomo street tires. I also drove directly on the track from a 45 minute drive and didnt check the tire pressure.

next.

12.0 @ 118 is more like what the car should do. 12.5 @ 116 means the driver cant drive worth a damn.

island dragway, most people would laugh when they call that place "prepped." it was also my first time out with that setup so I didnt know how it would behave out of the hole. only ran it with drag radials prior, not the sumitomo street tires. I also drove directly on the track from a 45 minute drive and didnt check the tire pressure.

next.

12.0 @ 118 is more like what the car should do. 12.5 @ 116 means the driver cant drive worth a damn.


I'm sure that dragstrip is as bad as a completely unprepared piece of pavement :rolleyes: And whether you were used to street tires or not, you were at least used to the basic way the car and throttle react. And you said it yourself, you're a drag racer which means you've made what, hundreds of passes at the strip?

As for not letting the car cool down or checking tire pressure, what can i say, you're my hero. No retort for torque management which definitely impairs the hit off the line too and makes launching inconsistent? What about the difference between a drag strip start with roll out vs. a 5th wheel instant start? You were a bit premature with your declaration of next question since thsoe are real issues too. I'll add one more anyway, the CTSv doesn't have as necessarily drag strip friendly rear (or front) suspension as an fbody. And while we're at it, there's more to accelerating from a stop than power to weight ratio, like grip to weight ratio. The CTSv relatively has less tire per lb than you did no doubt, even on street tires.

You're absolutely right the car should go faster, and definitely will. Unfortunately, i don't think the comparison of a car you are intimately familiar with on a prepared surface with a drag strip start with roll out to a late model car with no doubt heavy torque management quais very fair. You're comparing apples to oranges.

you made a bunch of assumptions, I addressed them. you're getting all bent out of shape here over something stupid. I just thought it was funny that 12.5 is the limit for street tires now I guess?

oh yeah, and 12.5 et out of that car is NOT impressive.

Sticky Mickeys will help it out of the hole, but will the IRS hold up to 4000rpm clutch dumps. The auto with a converter should be a real monster.

I've heard what torque level the rear diff was designed to hold - I won't repeat it here, but let's say that if the engineers met the spec, then drag radials won't be a problem :thumb:

thats good news. wonder if the camaro will be as strong

The car weighs 4300 lbs! It's practically a truck. This is a stock motor probably hovering around 480-500 RWHP. I can't wait to see what a pulley/intake/exhaust tune will do for one. I don't see why 650-700 RWHP isn't out of the question. There you go, you have a full size daily driveable Cadillac with the nicest GM interior I've ever seen and a ~130 trap to boot.