The CTS-V Debuts: 0-60 in 3.9, Top Speed of 191 MPH

[McLaren]

Most people don't drive upwards of 150mph or even drive like that on public roads. I think the need for increased safety is justified. I still don't understand why you think it makes the car faster when it's clearly adding more weight to it.

It helped achieve it. The roll cage does more than add weight & increase safety. Those Sparco seats did reduce weight. And if this stuff is being done, who knows whether or not anything else was done. This car could have different settings underneath for all we know.

Also where are you getting this BMW thing from, the article Brad posted talks about Nissan.

In another site, they published GM's time claiming it destroyed all the other performance sedans. It's been known for years BMW's M5 is one those sedans GM is trying to compete with.

 

[slidesquad#1]

I doubt it helped, seats don't weigh that much but rollcages do.

I think you might be underestimating quite how much modern seats with electric everything do actually weigh.

Most people don't drive upwards of 150mph or even drive like that on public roads

In that case why test the cars there at all? If you're throwing out numbers at a track as a selling point, it is reasonable that *some* customers will take their cars to the track and push them. Hard. If a car company has to modify the car for the safety of their trained test drivers, but doesn't feel the need to do so for Joe average car buyer, something isn't right. I'm not bashing GM here, but the seats and cage definitely play their part in the time more than you seem to be giving them credit for.

 

[Joey D]

I think you might be underestimating quite how much modern seats with electric everything do actually weigh.

100lbs. a piece at the most, I've pulled electric seats out of cars before, they are heavy but not heavy enough to make a huge difference.

In that case why test the cars there at all? If you're throwing out numbers at a track as a selling point, it is reasonable that *some* customers will take their cars to the track and push them. Hard. If a car company has to modify the car for the safety of their trained test drivers, but doesn't feel the need to do so for Joe average car buyer, something isn't right. I'm not bashing GM here, but the seats and cage definitely play their part in the time more than you seem to be giving them credit for.

There is no point to testing car on the Ring at all, it's not a proper track and as discussed numerous times there are to many variables to affect time.

The cage and seat might have gave the car what 2 or 3 seconds? If that. Over that long of a track a missed shift or improper corner could affect the time that much.

 

[Tornado]

I doubt it helped, seats don't weigh that much but rollcages do.

Power seats in luxury sedans can weigh a hundred pounds apiece. Sparcos can weigh as little as a dozen. The car most likely weighs less than the stock car, anyways, simply because I highly doubt the difference in weight the Sparco's got rid of is made up by the roll cage. For that matter, weight means very little in the grand scheme of things anyways when your car far higher stiffness than a stock vehicle because you welded a roll cage into it.

The only reason they put that stuff in was for safety reason, the sports seat are to accommodate 5 point harnesses and the roll cage is in their to perform it's function if the car were to flip over.

Safety reasons may be the actual cause, but they undoubtedly made the car faster. Things like that can be done for more than one reason. I highly doubt it was an accidental coincidence that they did two things to a car that would make it faster in all situations around any track.

 

[MustangSVT]

I find it hard to believe that it could handle better than a CLK63 AMG.

And how is a Skyline R33 GT-R as fast as an M5 around the Nurb? That doesn't make sense AT ALL.

 

[Wolfe]

Greater safety = Greater driver confidence.

 

[JCE]

And how is a Skyline R33 GT-R as fast as an M5 around the Nurb? That doesn't make sense AT ALL.

Because the R33 was the best Skyline ever and in GTR trim they are just pure awsomeness.

Oh, and I laugh at thie new CTS-V time. Post again when a stock OEM factory consumer spec vehicle with road tires does a time.

 

[McLaren]

Because the R33 was the best Skyline ever and in GTR trim they are just pure awsomeness.

Oh, and I laugh at thie new CTS-V time. Post again when a stock OEM factory consumer spec vehicle with road tires does a time.

Holy crap, I'm not the only person who thinks the R33 was best GT-R ever (not performance wise).

 

[JCE]

Holy crap, I'm not the only person who thinks the R33 was best GT-R ever (not performance wise).

While the R34 was cool and all, I preferred the R33 simply because the styling was better in my opinion and it had a saloon while the R32 and R34 didn't (to my knowledge). Plus, 33 as a number will always be better than 34.

 

[ranhammerR34]

I think the cts-v is a fine machine and it will be even a more kick butt car! More over, the car has to be the ONE OF the fastest around the ring! For four-doors.

 

[Prosthetic]

Holy crap, I'm not the only person who thinks the R33 was best GT-R ever (not performance wise).

While the R34 was cool and all, I preferred the R33 simply because the styling was better in my opinion and it had a saloon while the R32 and R34 didn't (to my knowledge). Plus, 33 as a number will always be better than 34.

I also think that the R33 is the Uberest GT-R evah. It's sexy, mean, fast, handles, and it wasn't it the first mass-produced car to do the ring in under 8 mins? Some record like that.

 

[slidesquad#1]

While the R34 was cool and all, I preferred the R33 simply because the styling was better in my opinion and it had a saloon while the R32 and R34 didn't (to my knowledge). Plus, 33 as a number will always be better than 34.

There's never been a factory four door GTR. But you can get non GTR Skyline saloons of R32 and R34 vintage.

 

[forza2.0]

I find it hard to believe that it could handle better than a CLK63 AMG.

And how is a Skyline R33 GT-R as fast as an M5 around the Nurb? That doesn't make sense AT ALL.

Because a few manufacturers are cheaters.

 

[McLaren]

Because a few manufacturers are cheaters.

They aren't cheaters. Some are just given...unfair advantages, so to put.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> Hmm, they should be saying 7:59*, yes with that asterisk. Why, you should say, if the car is altered in anyway is not considered bone-stock in my book, so that 'fastest sedan' was altered. I'm not impressed in any way. None of the manufacturer cars had any alterations or whatsoever when they attack the Nurb, just look on the [NA2] NSX-R or any other cars for Pete's sake!

-> Bring on a Commodore/HSV/VXR8/GXP to the Nurb. I, for one will be rooting on the Aussie phenom sedan.

-> Nice try Cadillac, another fail by 86% up from 52%.

There's never been a factory four door GTR. But you can get non GTR Skyline saloons of R32 and R34 vintage.

^ Actually there was, it was made by Autech. And its the only one in existance.

This was a 4 door GT-R. It was more than a simple RB26 transplant. The GT-R has rear fender flares as well as fronts. The front is easy to duplicate. It is the rear fender flares that are not. This one was a special one made by Autech. It is the only true factory 4 door GT-R I have ever seen.

^ I should put that in my wish list...

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, I wouldn't bank on the G8 GXP out-running the CTS-V, its short by 150 BHP and they end up weighing about the same (give or take). But I'm certain it would be a good race with that new HSV 427 (read LS7 power) version thats coming down the tube.

I'm not completely happy that Cadillac would do it, but it certainly does show that even with all the regular stuff in there, its still plenty fast. It seems quite obvious that they did it with the 6-speed manual, I'd be very interested to see a slushbox version go for a run.

 

[slidesquad#1]

->
^ Actually there was, it was made by Autech. And its the only one in existance.

Yup, I was well aware of the Autech one, but Autech =/=Nissan, is it? And even if it was a legit factory car, I wouldn't really call it a production car with a build run of one.

 

[Jim Prower]

^ Actually there was, it was made by Autech. And its the only one in existance.

^ I should put that in my wish list...

Was available as a used car in GT2, I believe.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Well, I wouldn't bank on the G8 GXP out-running the CTS-V, its short by 150 BHP and they end up weighing about the same (give or take). But I'm certain it would be a good race with that new HSV 427 (read LS7 power) version thats coming down the tube.

I'm not completely happy that Cadillac would do it, but it certainly does show that even with all the regular stuff in there, its still plenty fast. It seems quite obvious that they did it with the 6-speed manual, I'd be very interested to see a slushbox version go for a run.

Vauxhall are getting the W427 I believe. Maybe they will take it for a lap on the Burger?

 

[YSSMAN]

Cadillac has the video here of Heinricy's run on the 'Ring

The surprising part?

Thats a CTS-V with a slushbox. No, I'm not kidding.

 

[Tornado]

The slushbox version of the normal CTS was the faster one, if I recall correctly.

 

[Kent]

It's funny to me seeing the use of slushbox in this scenario. I'm not going to say much more (for various reasons) other than, I really find it absolutely hilarious.

 

[niky]

People don't like slushboxes because of the lack of control you have over engine braking and shifting.

But if it's programmed properly, I don't see why not. As a driver, you should really be concentrating on driving. Not on the intricate details of what the engine is doing. Instead, he should be focused on what is happening at the chassis. Despite the lack of out-of-corner pick-up, I find it refreshingly easy to drive an AT at the racetrack, because it allows you to focus on cornering technique and not tapping out the "Flight of the Bumblee" with ten toes and three pedals.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Cadillac has the video here of Heinricy's run on the 'Ring

The surprising part?

Thats a CTS-V with a slushbox. No, I'm not kidding.

You know what's even more surprising? People whined when they said it wasn't stock etc, because of the roll cage and seats yada yada. Well it is 100% stock, and that cage has only added weight, so in actual road trim it could go even faster theoretically.

 

[Joey D]

Yup according to the article it's a harness bar and not a roll cage.

 

[McLaren]

You know what's even more surprising? People whined when they said it wasn't stock etc, because of the roll cage and seats yada yada. Well it is 100% stock, and that cage has only added weight, so in actual road trim it could go even faster theoretically.

Adding a harness barn, and Sparco Evo 3s is not stock. This CTS-V is modified. End of discussion, there.

And because they added a harness bar instead, those 2 Sparco Evo 3s more than likely have made the car lighter.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Adding a harness barn, and Sparco Evo 3s is not stock. This CTS-V is modified. End of discussion, there.

And because they added a harness bar instead, those 2 Sparco Evo 3s more than likely have made the car lighter.

Meh, probably evens out. It doesn't change the car's handling at all, so it is stock. End of discussion nnnnnnnow.

 

[Wolfe]

Since no one seemed to notice...

Greater safety = Greater driver confidence.

Not to mention the fact that the harness and seats help keep the driver in place, allowing him to concentrate more on the drive instead of fighting the g-forces.

As a BMW fan, it wouldn't bother me if the new CTS-V is still the fastest sedan around the 'Ring in 100% stock form. I was actually excited about this car from the first preview in Road & Track. But this one wasn't stock.



As for the slushbox part, the car would have been faster with a dual clutch manual, no question. No matter how well-programmed a failmatic is, it still exhibits greater parasitic drivetrain loss, still has laggy throttle response, still can't replicate the off-throttle effects of a manual (useful for mid-corner corrections), and still isn't as effective in "manumatic" mode as a true manual.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Not to mention the fact that the harness and seats help keep the driver in place, allowing him to concentrate more on the drive instead of fighting the g-forces.

The regular seats don't look too bad, but I imagine the driver would be getting tossed around a lot.

 

[Kent]

Now I find it funny that people act like there's some big secret as to why manual transmissions are generally faster for racing.
I'm not going to go further than that other than to repeat that I find it funny (like anyone here has said or implied an auto is better or that the advantages of a manual are some kind of mystery).