CTS-V no longer available with stick?!?!

Stick no longer listed on Caddy site....

I'm not surprized if true. The Thunderbird SC sold in a huge number as manuals in 1989, but by the the last year of 1996, manuals could be measure in hundreds instead of thousands. SHOs also lostr their manuals due to lack of intrest after the initial rush. I'd love to see the CTSv manual numbers as a percentage of sales.... it would likely be depressing.

Truth is that luxury sports sedans here in the US are overwhelmingly automatics, even when manuals are available.

Wow, and to think the 2004-2007 CTS-V was only manual

Other than Camaro and Corvette, is there anything remotely fun that GM hasn't killed off?

You know, before I stalled my auto in my Camaro I used to ride the Manual Train.

But now after realizing the performance that an automatic can provide, along with the driveability... I see no reason to own a manual unless you were going to make a SCCA Autocross car (or any other track/twistie type racing).

And as time progresses I bet we'll see that tap-shift autos on those circuits as well...

Just because it doesn't have a clutch doesn't mean it can be made to perform. In fact, if they can get the tap shift to work with almost no delay; I see no reason to even have a manual...

The auto has multiple clutches, not just one. :p

But it is a deeper level of driver / machine involvement that attracts us manual addicts. However, I have to admit that after driving my brother's Z28 coupe and my buddy's SS droptop, both with automatics, I can see the appeal for some people. Mainly in the launch. Only having 4 gears sucks, and the lack of total control over WHEN the shift happens sucks too.

The new autos have fixed the 4 gears problem, and the tap shift gives much more control over shift timing when you want it (though they never seem to respond quite as quickly as I'd like, in any brand of car I've tried it in).

For a car like the CTS-V, though, I admit that I'd have to at least give the auto a try before buying. As a side bonus, it is the quicker of the two. But I know that I'd kick myself now and then for opting for the auto if I bought one.

Even in a new Camaro, I could see the appeal. But I'm pretty sure I'd go manual in that car if it were an SS for me. If the wife wanted to check out a V6 LS, I'd have no problem with her getting a 6A. Well, maybe a little problem, but not much... :)

That's it. I'm removing it from the list of 5 cars I want in my garage on facebook. Every single one had a manual. Even the diesel super duty. This no longer meets the requirements. :irk:

Sticks don't sell. Thats just the way it is. I feel like a standard is more reliable than an auto. The auto scares me, with the stick at least I'll feel the syncros wearing outor the clutch slipping. Every auto I have ever had go on me just made a loud bang and then no reverse and nothing beyond 2nd gear and it stuggled to get there.

I'll make no argument that automatics aren't usually faster or more advanced. However, there is a level of driver involvement that is absent in the case of the automatic.

In one case, I feel like I'm driving. In the other, I feel like I'm being driven.

Someday, they may come out with a car that has automatic steering, and can go around a racetrack faster than a human. I'll still prefer to steer myself.

I'll make no argument that automatics aren't usually faster or more advanced. However, there is a level of driver involvement that is absent in the case of the automatic.

In one case, I feel like I'm driving. In the other, I feel like I'm being driven.

Someday, they may come out with a car that has automatic steering, and can go around a racetrack faster than a human. I'll still prefer to steer myself.

Amen!

Automatics are for the lazy and uninterested.

Yet another big thumbs down for GM.

my local dealer has a stick coming in in the next few weeks that I have been looking at hard...I just find it hard to part with that kind of $$$.

I was taking your word for it at first but I just took a look for myself. Maybe its an error in the build your own options. Its still listed in the specs. The manual is also not available when building a 3.6 CTS.

The reason there are so few standard transmission cars in today's world is that the majority (by a big margin) of people don't want them.

Automatics have not only mostly caught up with standard transmissions in performance they exceed the performance of standards in many applications.

Standard transmissions can be fun and they have their benefits but except for very small minority of enthusiasts, they just don't sell or even make sense for a manufacturer to produce.

I like the CTS-V a lot and if were shopping for a new daily driver it would be on my very short list but I doubt I'd buy a standard shift and doubt very many others who can afford the CTS-V would either.

I was taking your word for it at first but I just took a look for myself. Maybe its an error in the build your own options. Its still listed in the specs. The manual is also not available when building a 3.6 CTS.

I see what you're saying, but last month on "build your own" they had a 6 speed manual choice.

GM updated several sections of their sites including the build your own sections. Unfortunately we all know they always make mistakes. The Camaro no longer displays stripe packages on the preview car when you select them. I remember earlier this year you were able to build a V8 Colorado with a manual trans. If only that were true.

This shows that for 2010 the manual is available. This documentation should also be more trustworthy. (Though they don't have the 3.6 listed in the left column)
http://eogld.ecomm.gm.com/NASApp/domestic/proddesc.jsp?year=2010&regionID=1&divisionID=5&type=0&vehicleID=8498&section=oi_def&page=7&pagenum=2&page=7&butID=16&addOptions=

I didn't realize the LF1 3.0 V6 was going in the CTS.

I didn't realize the LF1 3.0 V6 was going in the CTS.

:eek: WOW .."NEW! Engine, 3.0L V6 SIDI DOHC VVT (270 hp [201 kW] @ 7000 rpm, 223 lb-ft of torque [302 N-m] @ 5700 rpm)"

270HP is a lot of power for a N/A 3.0L. I wonder how much better the mpg will be from the 3.6L.

I'm thinking this engine has been mentioned before...
but if not, then it deserves a new thread :D

I'm also wondering how it compares to the LNF in performance and mileage?

:eek: WOW .."NEW! Engine, 3.0L V6 SIDI DOHC VVT (270 hp [201 kW] @ 7000 rpm, 223 lb-ft of torque [302 N-m] @ 5700 rpm)"

270HP is a lot of power for a N/A 3.0L. I wonder how much better the mpg will be from the 3.6L.

Hasn't the Accord been making that kind of power out of a 3L for several years now.

I'm thinking this engine has been mentioned before...
but if not, then it deserves a new thread :D

I'm also wondering how it compares to the LNF in performance and mileage?

Yes, it's the LF1 - it's the base engine in the 2010 LaCrosse and Cadillac SRX and is the optional V6 in the 2010 Equinox.

I assume it completely replaces the non-DI 3.6 in the Cadillac lineup. Power is about the same.

Hasn't the Accord been making that kind of power out of a 3L for several years now.

You are thinking of the 3.5L that puts out 271HP. 3.0L put out 240HP, so does Fords 3.0L.

You are thinking of the 3.5L that puts out 271HP. 3.0L put out 240HP, so does Fords 3.0L.

Yeah, I wasn't totally sure on that. Thanks for the correction.

Amen!

Automatics are for the lazy and uninterested.

Yet another big thumbs down for GM.

Ask the drag racers if they are lazy and uninterested? Autos dominate drag racing. ;)

Yes I know, I doubt many people would drag-race a CTS-V. I would if I had the dough to buy one and strip it down though!!! :lol:

Other than Camaro and Corvette, is there anything remotely fun that GM hasn't killed off?

Is this CTS-V now no longer remotely fun?

Ask the drag racers if they are lazy and uninterested? Autos dominate drag racing. ;)

Yes I know, I doubt many people would drag-race a CTS-V. I would if I had the dough to buy one and strip it down though!!! :lol:


Trust me, I'm not refering to drag racers.

I'm refering to the majority of drivers on the road - half asleep and uninvolved mentally with the task at hand, namely driving the car.

A manual forces a driver to be more aware of the car and the conditions around it, and that's a good thing in my book. We already rely too much on devices instead of our own jusgement when operating too many aspects of a car and the act of driving itself, so in my view the more manuals out there the better.

Of course, they are simply more fun to drive and I'd be lying if I said that wasn't my main motivation.

Is this CTS-V now no longer remotely fun?

:think: hmmm.... this give me an idea for a spin off thread. What is more fun: 556HP CTS-V automatic or Cobalt XFE manual. :lol:

Ask the drag racers if they are lazy and uninterested? Autos dominate drag racing. ;)

Yes I know, I doubt many people would drag-race a CTS-V. I would if I had the dough to buy one and strip it down though!!! :lol:

I picked up the joking mannerism in your post, but there really is no comparison to an auto versus a stick on the street. A stick is more fun to drive.

I would even say a stick is more fun to drive than a stalled up auto. I know some of the auto guys swear by higher stall auto cars, but there is still no comparison. A stalled up auto is way better than a stock convertered car though.

:think: hmmm.... this give me an idea for a spin off thread. What is more fun: 556HP CTS-V automatic or Cobalt XFE manual. :lol:
That's a tough one for me... Honestly, slower cars can be more fun sometimes because you can row through the gears and not be going too fast. In a Z06 you get through 1st gear and you're already going 60 and breaking the speed limit on most roads.

:think: hmmm.... this give me an idea for a spin off thread. What is more fun: 556HP CTS-V automatic or Cobalt XFE manual. :lol:

That is great.

That's a tough one for me... Honestly, slower cars can be more fun sometimes because you can row through the gears and not be going too fast. In a Z06 you get through 1st gear and you're already going 60 and breaking the speed limit on most roads.

We have one vote for lunacy.

somebody on a local board (that is mostly imports) said this yesterday:
"Its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow... "

I just laughed when I read that.

Oh yeah, he drive's a Miata...

somebody on a local board (that is mostly imports) said this yesterday:
"Its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow... "

I just laughed when I read that.

Oh yeah, he drive's a Miata...

I think it could be true. But, I think it is even more fun to drive a fast car fast. :D

somebody on a local board (that is mostly imports) said this yesterday:
"Its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow... "


And that, my friends, is the mentality which explains why the ricer movement exploded in popularity....

:think: hmmm.... this give me an idea for a spin off thread. What is more fun: 556HP CTS-V automatic or Cobalt XFE manual. :lol:

That's a tough one for me... Honestly, slower cars can be more fun sometimes because you can row through the gears and not be going too fast. In a Z06 you get through 1st gear and you're already going 60 and breaking the speed limit on most roads.

That is great.



We have one vote for lunacy.


Another vote for lunacy. For normal daily driving, I'd take a slower car with a stick than a faster car with an auto any day of the week. Driving an auto around town just isn't fun for me...I want the car to do what I want, when I want it! :)

somebody on a local board (that is mostly imports) said this yesterday:
"Its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow... "

I just laughed when I read that.

Oh yeah, he drive's a Miata...

I think that can be true too, as long as the car is entertaining ... and Miatas are; if he was talking about an Aveo, not so much. A "slow" car like a Miata has very approachable and fun limits to play around with and explore, with relatively minimal risk. But try exploring the limits on of a ZR1 on the streets and not only are you well into illegal territory, you're also putting your car, yourself, and other people at considerable risk.

I think that can be true too, as long as the car is entertaining ... and Miatas are; if he was talking about an Aveo, not so much. A "slow" car like a Miata has very approachable and fun limits to play around with and explore, with relatively minimal risk. But try exploring the limits on of a ZR1 on the streets and not only are you well into illegal territory, you're also putting your car, yourself, and other people at considerable risk.
That's more as to what I was getting at. The Cobalt is a bit of a stretch also considering that I despise FWD. Let's substitute something in the 200-300hp range and some sort of refinement vs an auto CTS-V.

Another vote for lunacy. For normal daily driving, I'd take a slower car with a stick than a faster car with an auto any day of the week. Driving an auto around town just isn't fun for me...I want the car to do what I want, when I want it! :)

Driving a manual around Dallas sucks during rush hour. That is the part of a manual I don't miss.

I dont know if its been talked about, but when you go to caddy's site, click on the V series section, click on CTS-V, it says "Tremec TR6060 Manual Trans" in the highlights.

And that, my friends, is the mentality which explains why the ricer movement exploded in popularity....

Nah, I don't buy that at all. The ricer mentality was more a belief that a kid's hand-me-down piece of crap could all the sudden become fast and cool with a huge exhaust and a wing. Some slow cars are fun to drive.

Cars like the ZR1 are great for terrorizing onramps, but not really good in most of kinds of traffic.

somebody on a local board (that is mostly imports) said this yesterday:
"Its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow... "

I just laughed when I read that.

Oh yeah, he drive's a Miata...

How can I put this delicately?

Being alone and fantasizing about a beautiful woman may seem fulfilling, but the real thing is where the fun begins...;)

Driving a manual around Dallas sucks during rush hour. That is the part of a manual I don't miss.

My experience in heavy traffic with the two works out to something like this:

Manual -> Work the clutch every once in a while
Auto -> Constantly keep your foot on the brake and modulating it, because the car keeps moving otherwise. Basically, as much or more work as a manual.

Both suck in traffic, but when the traffic clears, it's manual all the way for me. :)

somebody on a local board (that is mostly imports) said this yesterday:
"Its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow... "

I just laughed when I read that.

Oh yeah, he drive's a Miata...
Who cares what he drives, he is right.

It is always much more fun to drive a car at or near its limit than somewhere far below the limit.

One can be called a test of driver skill, the other could be called commuting or running errands.


Sort of related:

Once I had to make a back and forth cross-state Pennsylvania run in a rental Aveo. Let me tell you something, running I-80 through the mountains at 80 - 90mph in that Aveo was vastly more exciting than it would have been in my car. :D

Who cares what he drives, he is right.

It is always much more fun to drive a car at or near its limit than somewhere far below the limit.

thats a matter of opinion.

So driving at less than 100% of the capability of a car is more fun than driving one at 100%?

Elaborate on that opinion please.


I'll do the same.


Let's say I hustle a <insert POS econocar here> around an autocross course at some elapsed time. I'm flogging the thing and driving for all I'm worth. Working the wheel, squealing tires, sliding around, missing the cones by millimeters.

Now let's say you drive a <insert supercar here> through the same course at exactly the same speed and therefore exactly the same elapsed time. However, now it's a total snooze fest. You didn't even scratch the surface of the car's or your own abilities. Heck, I'll go one better. Let's say you do drive the car faster and turn a faster time than my POS but you still don't even get near the car's potential (or yours).

Who had more fun?

You puttering around in the supercar or me driving the econobox for all it's worth?




What makes driving fun is exploring your personal limits as a driver as well as those of the car. If you don't agree with this then you've never gotten near either one.

Who cares what he drives, he is right.

It is always much more fun to drive a car at or near its limit than somewhere far below the limit.

One can be called a test of driver skill, the other could be called commuting or running errands.


Sort of related:

Once I had to make a back and forth cross-state Pennsylvania run in a rental Aveo. Let me tell you something, running I-80 through the mountains at 80 - 90mph in that Aveo was vastly more exciting than it would have been in my car. :D


Driving any car to white knuckle levels will lead to a bad incident. It's fine on a closed circuit if you have bottomless pockets.

I take the notion that the fellow's premise is that he feels a fast car CAN'T be driven to the point of fun but a slower car allows doing so without risk. That isn't true.

I caution anyone from attempting to drive any vehicle at ten tenths on the street. Regardless of how fast or slow the car is.

Let's not confuse excitement and fun.

I always have more fun in a fast car as opposed to one that's shorter on thrust or handling, and brakes . Smooth is fast, and faster and better handling is far more conducive to being smooth.

I have had the opportunity to drive a few full out race cars, some worth more than a million bucks. They weren't mine so I wouldn't dream of trying to go ten tenths. Despite that they were as much fun as one can have with one's clothes on.:yes:

The difference in two or more car's performance is magnified in any sort of competition scenario. Nothing sucks quite as much as driving 110% and being walked by the competition. It's not exciting, just tiring. No exhilaration. Just an intense desire to take a sledge to the dog assed junk you have had to drive.

I get the notion that it's fun to drive a challenge. I'll still opt for the faster more capable ride as delivering the biggest smile.

Flogging some POS does not make me a skilled driver. It just means I'm inclined to push my luck in something that might kill me.

As for me? A Z06 at 90% is way more fun than a Miata at 100%. For that matter, a Z06 at 10% would be preferable.

So driving at less than 100% of the capability of a car is more fun than driving one at 100%?

Elaborate on that opinion please.
who says you have to push a car to 100% to have fun? i've had lots of fun in my camaro...even once in my mustang and i wasn't going anywhere near the limit in either car.

and to drive ten-tenths on the street is stupid imo.

I've joked with him and several others on the local board about me taking my truck out the next time they hit the track. They questioned if track management would even allow that. To me that would be about the same thing. Sure, it's a big slow understeering brick, but at 9/10s it would probably be fun for a couple laps. If I just upgrade the swaybars, then it could actually be comparable to their lighter but MUCH lower powered FWD cars. It may weigh 70-80% more, but it also has 150% more power.

My experience in heavy traffic with the two works out to something like this:

Manual -> Work the clutch every once in a while
Auto -> Constantly keep your foot on the brake and modulating it, because the car keeps moving otherwise. Basically, as much or more work as a manual.

Both suck in traffic, but when the traffic clears, it's manual all the way for me. :)

Try it with an auto that has a much higher stall torque converter... That greatly reduces the creep that you get with a stock converter.