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

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 198 comments
  • 13,542 views
ITS HEEEERRRRREEEEE!!!!

x09ca_ct010.jpg


Autoblog
Our friends over at Jalopnik say the CTS-V is officially fair game now, so here we go. Now that the second generation Cadillac CTS is on the streets and garnering largely positive reviews for its looks, performance and handling dynamics, the time has come to turn it up a notch. The 2008 Detroit Auto Show will bring us the second generation high-performance CTS-V model. Just as the original 2004 version used an engine derived from the top Corvette of the time, so too does the new model. The 2009 CTS-V leap-frogs its chief competitor - the BMW M5 - with GM's new LSA V8 derived from the LS9 in the Corvette ZR1.

The goal of the CTS-V development team was to create a car with the poise and sophistication of the best luxury sedans melded with the outstanding performance of a high sports car. To achieve that they installed the supercharged 6.2L V-8 with an output of 550 horsepower and 550 lb-ft of torque into a heavily upgraded chassis and then went about dressing up both the interior and exterior to match.

x09ca_ct011-450.jpg


Given that Cadillac plans to offer the new CTS-V in overseas markets for the first time, they felt they had to up their game in order to compete with the likes of the M5 and the AMG E63. The new engine offers so much more torque at all speeds than the V10 in the M5 that driveability should be much better regardless of whether the manual or automatic transmission is installed. For those who prefer to handle the gear selection process on their own, the same Tremec 6060 used in the ZR1 is paired up with a dual plate clutch. The dual plate clutch provides the necessary torque capacity with a lower pedal effort.

Drivers who spend more of their time stuck in traffic jams or who just prefer two-pedal driving will be able to select the Hydramatic 6L90 six-speed automatic. For those times when you feel like being a Schumacher, tap shifting is available either through the steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters or with the console shift lever. The automatic also has driver selectable shift modes including a Performance Algorithm that changes the shift points and firmness based on the driving conditions that are measured from vehicle sensors.

x09ca_ct018-450.jpg
x09ca_ct020-450.jpg


Nineteen-inch wheels are used at both axles with 9-inch wide units used in front, 9.5-inch in the rear. The wheels are wrapped in customized Z-Rated Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tires. Another place where the CTS-V borrows from the ZR1 (and before that the STS) is the use of Magnetic Ride Control. The dampers filled with magneto-rheological fluid are adjusted based on sensor readings that happen at 1ms intervals. Of course, all of this fancy hardware needs a stiff chassis to push back against. To help accommodate this, a massive aluminum cross-brace connects the front strut towers.

Any tire only offers its maximum grip within a narrow range of slip. Not enough and you don't move. Too much and the wheels just spin helplessly. To keep the tires working at their best, the Performance Traction Management uses the same sensors normally used for stability control, but the control is optimized to get the most performance out of the powertrain. The control algorithms used by the PTM were developed during the CTS-V race program over the last few years.

Sooner or later every car has to slow down and here Brembo again comes to the rescue. Like the ZR1, six-pot Brembo calipers do the work up front with four-piston units at the back. In this case, though, the 15-inch front and 14.7-inch rear composite rotors are made of steel with aluminum hubs and slotted surfaces instead of carbon ceramic.

x09ca_ct019-450.jpg


Following the pattern of previous V-Series Cadillacs the CTS-V gets a mesh grille to set it apart visually, but it doesn't end there. That powerhouse engine and the cross-brace need some extra head-room, which is provided by a bulging hood. On the inside, 14-way adjustable Recaro seats keep the driver firmly planted in front of the steering wheel. Those seats, along with the shifter and steering wheel, are wrapped in a micro-fiber material that looks like suede but is easier to keep clean and isn't sensitive to moisture. As the top end CTS, the V also has all the expected luxury goodies including a Bose digital audio system with a 40GB hard drive and a navigation system.

HOLY KICK-ASS BATMAN!

So, uh, yeah. All we need to know is the price, and we're set, right? I'd be willing to bet that this one brings the pain not just to the M3/C63 crowd, but is rather happy to wipe that smile off the M5 and RS6 as well. GM really means business these days. This car is just AWESOME!
 
It might touch the M5, but you honestly think Audi's twin-turbo V10 RS6 will be threatened?

I think you're putting putting to much faith in this car.
 
Maybe, maybe not. If the ZR1 bits and pieces rubbed off enough on the already-stellar CTS FE3, I'm having a hard time not seeing it right there with the RS6. Cadillac clearly means business with this one, I'm sure they've got some surprises waiting for us...
 
At least they got rid of the inset grill which is what I'm glad to see. I do think there's a bit much going in the front compared to the rear though in design.
 
Let's see how nuts this thing is compared to the C63...It already sounds mean. I keep on imagining a "rumpety-rumpety" Idle, though, which I know won't happen, but it'll sound mean on the loud pedal.
 
I'd expect it to be louder than this:


Of course, with an added supercharger whine...
 
but is rather happy to wipe that smile off the M5 and RS6 as well.
Most likely just as heavy, but with less traction and power? Yeah, I don't see that happening. It may be faster around the track, but that just shows the obvious.
 
I'd say stack another 300 or so pounds on the CTS FE3 and you're in the ballpark for the CTS-V. Its still going to have a pretty deadly power to weight ratio, a little less than 7.5 BHP per pound. Assuming they make the gear ratios the right size, I'd predict 0-60 times right around 4.0 seconds (no more than 4.5 seconds, assuming the power can get to the ground) and a top speed in the neighborhood of 180 MPH.

The big question is price, and I'd spec it right around $55K as an educated guess.
 
I'd say stack another 300 or so pounds on the CTS FE3 and you're in the ballpark for the CTS-V.
...Which would make it weigh about as much as the Audi RS6...



Have I said how I think this car is still comically heavy? Why does it only give up 40 pounds to the larger-in-every-dimension STS?
 
That, and its really only a couple stone shy of the decidedly "full-size" Zeta cars. Which is odd too, given that they're about the same size as the STS as well (slightly bigger?).
 
Interesting. The mesh isnt working for me but the rest looks great. Cant wait o see one in person.
 
I like the upgraded interior, especially the Alcantara wheel.

But I think front airdam is overly styled and fussy.

Otherwise, thumbs up.


M
 
Lap-times are in, and all are *claimed* figures...

ctsv_greenhell1280.jpg


Autoblog
The badassery going in inside the supercharged LSA V8 stuffed under the domed hood of the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V appears to translate well on the Nordschleife's graffiti-marked tarmac. GM announced today that John Heinricy exercised his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of a record time by wheeling a CTS-V with production-spec performance mods around the Nürburgring's north loop in 7:59.32, which is believed to be the "fastest documented lap time" for a production sedan. Even if that turns out not to be the case, it's pretty freakin' fast. GM shot video of the whole thing, which should be released in the coming days. Somewhere, Nissan engineers with furrowed brows are shoving the GT-R's 3.8L V6 into a G35 sedan...

That makes the next-closest sedan (of that size range) the ol' Audi RS4 back at 8'09. Not bad, but certainly (as always) difficult to completely confirm.
 
I still cannot fathom why GM put the nasty front end of the normal CTS on the normal CTS when they could have put something along those lines on it instead.
 
Here's some comparison numbers.


8:13 BMW M5 E60
8:09 BMW M6 E63
8:05 BMW M3 E92
8:03 Aston Martin V8 Vantage (2005)
8:02 Mercedes CLK 63 AMG - Black Series
8:01 Nissan Skyline GT-R R33
7:59.32 - New Caddy CTSV
7:59 Dodge Viper SRT-10
7:59 Porsche 997 Carrera S
7:56 Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale

Keeping up with a Viper and a 997 is pretty impressive.
 
Lap-times are in, and all are *claimed* figures...



That makes the next-closest sedan (of that size range) the ol' Audi RS4 back at 8'09. Not bad, but certainly (as always) difficult to completely confirm.

You get a 'cage and lightweight Sparco seats with the standard car? Really?
 
Very fast indeed. Let's hope the official run is in the same ball park.

How much faster do you think it could be with the AWD and LSA? Putting that torque down would be nice.
 
Yeah, neither did I! Good spot!

Hence the *claimed* tags... Looks like all of them will go to whatever lengths possible to get good times these days.
 
Im pretty certain its not the fastest sedan time but that depends on whose figures you are going by.
 
You get a 'cage and lightweight Sparco seats with the standard car? Really?

It's probably a safety thing, GM doesn't want it's test driver to die if they over estimate something.

And whether it really is that time or not, it's still going to be quick. Lets just hope the rest of the car will be as good as the power.
 
It's probably a safety thing, GM doesn't want it's test driver to die if they over estimate something.

And whether it really is that time or not, it's still going to be quick. Lets just hope the rest of the car will be as good as the power.

That's a fine thought and all, then, but the time isn't valid unless we get that kind of equipment, too.
 
How does a rollcage and seats make a car faster? If anything the rollcage adds weight. I'm sure many of the cars that go out there have that sort of stuff in them.
 
How does a rollcage and seats make a car faster? If anything the rollcage adds weight. I'm sure many of the cars that go out there have that sort of stuff in them.
It makes it stiffer and the Sparco's reduce the weight. Don't try to act like it didn't help this particular CTS-V gain the time it got.

It's not a valid time to try and throw in BMW's face, anyways. Their time was set in a M5 that came the exact way a customer's will come. Limiter and all. The question remains whether or not an independent source can take a CTS-V and beat it.

As far as I'm concerned, this time is just to cut corners and brag. It's nothing more than a modified car by the factory to compare to a stock M5. Let us know when a bone stock CTS-V is going to be tested.
 
I doubt it helped, seats don't weigh that much but rollcages do. As I've said if anything they made the car heavier. 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. You honestly think that most of the cars that have ran around a track haven't had things like that in it?

And I don't care whether it is faster then BMW or not, I'm not disputing that. 7:59 is a fast time and even completely stock it will probably run close to that. Not that it really means any thing at all.
 
I doubt it helped, seats don't weigh that much but rollcages do. As I've said if anything they made the car heavier. 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. You honestly think that most of the cars that have ran around a track haven't had things like that in it?
I didn't say most cars didn't. However, there shouldn't be a need for anymore safety. The car should be safe as is, from the factory. Porsche never pulled this with the Turbo, nor has BMW when testing their cars. Safety? Sounds like their excuse to just use non-production, racing material in their car.

The fact remains though, that the time isn't comparable. It's a modified car being bragged by GM against a stock BMW.
 
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.

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