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

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 198 comments
  • 13,540 views
like anyone here has said or implied an auto is better or that the advantages of a manual are some kind of mystery
Actually, ridiculing the use of the term "slushbox" to describe an automatic does the trick.

I don't know what kind of ego trip you're on this time, but there's nothing odd, unusual, or hilarious about the way niky responded to your post, and as far as I can tell there's nothing odd, unusual, or hilarious about the way I responded to niky's post. If our discussion gives you the giggles, that's fine; I really couldn't care less what you think, considering there are members with two-digit post counts whose opinions I value higher than yours. However, I do find it strange that a GTPlanet moderator would spam an Auto News thread with two childish "lol I think this is funny but I'm not going to tell you why" posts while simultaneously belittling members for willingly discussing something both automotive-related and relevant to the thread.

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised, though, considering you've proven time and time again to have a rather unorthodox trolling technique. I just still haven't figured out your motive.

At any rate, go ahead and have your fun. Let us know when you're ready to actually contribute to the discussion. :)
 
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.

I am a BMW fan and would easily take an M5 over a CTS-V, but the car was stock, same suspension, same power. The additions were safety features put in place for a high speed run, something that a every day CTS-V wouldn't experience. the car is still in test mode so there is always a greater possibility of a failure that can spell disaster for the test driver. I'm sure many cars that go around the Ring have basic safety equipment on board as well.

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.

The majority of people buying this car won't want a manual, this will be a daily driver for many consumers. I say test it in the way the majority of your buyers will be using it. I'm sure it would be faster with a manual though, although modern autos are quite good.
 
Actually, ridiculing the use of the term "slushbox" to describe an automatic does the trick.

I don't know what kind of ego trip you're on this time, but there's nothing odd, unusual, or hilarious about the way niky responded to your post, and as far as I can tell there's nothing odd, unusual, or hilarious about the way I responded to niky's post. If our discussion gives you the giggles, that's fine; I really couldn't care less what you think, considering there are members with two-digit post counts whose opinions I value higher than yours. However, I do find it strange that a GTPlanet moderator would spam an Auto News thread with two childish "lol I think this is funny but I'm not going to tell you why" posts while simultaneously belittling members for willingly discussing something both automotive-related and relevant to the thread.

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised, though, considering you've proven time and time again to have a rather unorthodox trolling technique. I just still haven't figured out your motive.

At any rate, go ahead and have your fun. Let us know when you're ready to actually contribute to the discussion. :)

Well I suppose I should be honored to have you think so poorly of me (take that for what you will).

Since I can tell you don't understand what I meant in my various replies, allow me say just a little something to help you understand (although the intelligence of your insults towards me suggest you are more than capable of understanding nearly anything :rolleyes: )...

First I must admit... I thought it would be obvious that the irony of calling the 7'59 sedan's automatic a slushbox when none of us have driven that car would be the cause of my laughter.

That said...
I find it funny that a transmission no one here has driven gets such poor opinions and to make matters worse, the transmission in question is being discussed because it is attached to the (rumored) fastest sedan on the Ring.

So to put it simply...
I find it funny that so many are saying cliche comments about an automatic transmission with such a high level of performance (especially when, I assume, no one here has driven a brand new CTS-V with an automatic).

Funny might be the wrong word though... Being that no one seems to have driven a brand new CTS-V with an auto, ignorant might be a better word.

Of course, if someone who calls the CTS-V's auto a slushbox has also driven a brandnew CTS-V with that transmission then I will happily accept their opinion to be relatively well informed and worthy of consideration. :bowdown:

However, ridiculing the use of slushbox certainly does not imply there is a mystery to the advantages of a manual transmission.

Btw, Wolfe, would your quoted reply be considered flaming? I'd say so but we'll just keep that between us. ;)
Also, would you consider that post a quality contribution to the thread? I know I'm just a trolling moderator who doesn't write-off every auto as a slushbox but to me your post seemed more like flaming harassment than anything else. :indiff:
 
First I must admit... I thought it would be obvious that the irony of calling the 7'59 sedan's automatic a slushbox when none of us have driven that car would be the cause of my laughter.
What's obvious about that? "Slushbox" is just a derogatory term for an automatic; it has absolutely nothing to do with how quick or capable the car is.

I find it funny that a transmission no one here has driven gets such poor opinions and to make matters worse, the transmission in question is being discussed because it is attached to the (rumored) fastest sedan on the Ring.

So to put it simply...
I find it funny that so many are saying cliche comments about an automatic transmission with such a high level of performance (especially when, I assume, no one here has driven a brand new CTS-V with an automatic).

Funny might be the wrong word though... Being that no one seems to have driven a brand new CTS-V with an auto, ignorant might be a better word.

Of course, if someone who calls the CTS-V's auto a slushbox has also driven a brandnew CTS-V with that transmission than I will happily accept their opinion to be relatively well informed and worthy of consideration. :bowdown:
If you had stated this outright then there would have been no confusion as to your intentions and your contributions to the thread would have actually been constructive.

Now that you've explained yourself I can understand your sentiment, but an automatic is an automatic is an automatic. If it uses a torque converter, there's no physical way for the transmission to overcome the drawbacks I described on the last page. That's just the way torque converters are, and those reasons are more than enough justification to refer to any automatic transmission as a "slushbox," even if it is installed in a very quick car.

Btw, Wolfe, would your quoted reply be considered flaming? I'd say so but we'll just keep that between us. ;)
Also, would you consider that post a quality contribution to the thread? I know I'm just a trolling moderator who doesn't write-off every auto as a slushbox but to me your post seemed more like flaming harassment than anything else. :indiff:
I wouldn't argue if you want to interpret it that way. I'm just tired of you skirting around the issue and attacking the opinions of other members while pretending you're not doing anything wrong by not referring to anyone by name; you've done this numerous times before.

As for whether or not my post was a quality contribution to the thread, perhaps not, but it certainly got you to open up and tell us what you were thinking, and though I may not like you and may disagree, your point is most definitely a quality contribution to the discussion at hand.
 
What's obvious about that? "Slushbox" is just a derogatory term for an automatic; it has absolutely nothing to do with how quick or capable the car is.


If you had stated this outright then there would have been no confusion as to your intentions and your contributions to the thread would have actually been constructive.

Now that you've explained yourself I can understand your sentiment, but an automatic is an automatic is an automatic. If it uses a torque converter, there's no physical way for the transmission to overcome the drawbacks I described on the last page. That's just the way torque converters are, and those reasons are more than enough justification to refer to any automatic transmission as a "slushbox," even if it is installed in a very quick car.


I wouldn't argue if you want to interpret it that way. I'm just tired of you skirting around the issue and attacking the opinions of other members while pretending you're not doing anything wrong by not referring to anyone by name; you've done this numerous times before.

As for whether or not my post was a quality contribution to the thread, perhaps not, but it certainly got you to open up and tell us what you were thinking, and though I may not like you and may disagree, your point is most definitely a quality contribution to the discussion at hand.
No biggie.
 
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.

Actually, GM says no:

Edmunds Inside Line
Yes, it's the automatic — Heinricy's run was made in a CTS-V equipped with the new six-speed automatic. More incredibly however, even though the new transmission is equipped with shift triggers on the steering wheel, Heinricy never once touches them during the run. "He's letting the computer do the shifting," one source told us. "It matches the right gears to the braking perfectly."

The manual isn't as fast — "The reason you see John wave at the beginning of the video," another anonymous source told us, "is because (ride and drive engineer) Aaron Link is right behind him in a manual-transmission CTS-V." Link, an excellent driver in his own right, simply couldn't keep up with Heinricy and throughout testing, the automatic has proven to be the hot setup for this car. "There's video of Aaron's run, and he's incredibly busy" an insider told us. "Meanwhile, John barely moves."

The run was made from a flying start — Heinricy began his lap three corners behind the start/finish line. So he was already up to speed by the time the clock started.

The CTS-V is airborne at three points in the video — The 'Ring's notorious for flinging cars up in the air and it tried to send this Cadillac into orbit as well. However the active suspension incorporating the magnetic ride shocks has been tuned to deal with precisely such launches. Because he knew the car would leap flat, fly flat and land flat, Heinricy never had to lift once during the run. "Dave Mikels is the guy behind it," our source told us, "and he's done an absolutely amazing job."

There was a roll cage in the car — For safety's sake, as well as for an anchor point for the six-point safety harnesses, there was a four-point roll cage bolted into the car. However the cage was "loose fit" and didn't add any structural heft to the car. "We didn't want to change the car's balance at all," said our hush-hush source.

Stock tires — Heinricy's run was made on production-spec Michelin Pilot Sport 2s. However, the tires were heat-cycled and scrubbed the previous evening to ensure their performance the next day.

Cool of the morning — The run was made between 7 and 8 a.m. when GM could rent the track before it was open to the public for that day's usual mix of romping and roiling. The cool of the morning may have made the track a bit quicker, but it also meant there was no chance Heinricy would come over a berm and find a stalled tour bus in front of him.

Wet sump simplicity — While the CTS-V's engine is similar to the new Corvette ZR-1's in that it's a supercharged 6.2-liter V8, it's not the exact same engine. One of the big differences is that the ZR-1 runs a dry-sump oiling system, while the Cadillac uses a conventional wet-sump oiling system. "The CTS-V simply isn't capable of the lateral loads the Corvette can generate," the source explained. "It's heavier and has smaller tires."

Burnouts 'R Us — Unrelated to the run around the 'Ring, but good to know is that epic burnouts have been part of the new CTS-V's engineering all along. In both manual or automatic transmission modes it will be possible, said our confidante, "to annihilate the tires like John Force if you want."

Our source further reminds us that Heinricy's run was a nearly perfect one and it won't be easily duplicated simply because few people have Heinricy's talent or familiarity with the track. To those who were disappointed in the soundtrack accompanying the run, a source insists that these tapes are generated for engineering evaluation and not for marketing considerations. And, another of our sources promises, the new CTS-V sounds as awesome as it looks.

What this means to you: This time next year, for the first time ever, the world's premier performance sedan could be a Cadillac. — Kelly Toepke, News Editor

Its not all that surprising I suppose. The 6L80E is a strong performer with proper programming, and I think this is a good case for it. I don't think its pulling off shift times like the ZF box in the Jaguar XK, but its good considering that its used in damn-near-everything at GM.
 
Whoa, whoa... I missed a fire in the last few posts... well... thank science it's over...

Let me add my 2 cents in the slushbox debate.

While it IS true that a manual clutch system is definitely the best at transmitting power, computer operated clutches, except for the DSG, can't really match the smoothness of a good driver... and perfectly matching downshifts is something not many people, myself included, can properly master. Me? I generally just let things slide till I get to a corner and shift once I've finished my braking and steering input. Yes, I'm generally quick on track, but I'm a blipped downshift behind the best drivers in terms of lap times...

A slushbox with a torque converter does exert a parasitic loss, but it's smooth, and it can further smoothen out the surge of torque on clutch engagement that can unsettle a car on full-power upshifts (unless the computer is programmed for it)... I absolutely LOATHE slushboxes in daily drivers... there's not enough torque to move them, and no justification when your shifts are something like 3 - 5 seconds apart.

But with these modern sportscars... shifts are starting to get ridiculously fast... if, like GM says in the article, you're constantly banging away gears just to keep up, you're definitely at a disadvantage to the other guy. Sure, he may have an extra 10-20 hp parasitic loss, but he doesn't have to worry about as many things as the guy balancing gearshifts, steering and brakes (with or without a clutch). And if you program the AT perfectly, it can shift seamlessly up or down for you, giving you both maximum acceleration and braking.

There's a good reason Mercedes and some dragsters use slushboxes... tremendous torque capacity and smooth operation suit modern high-po engines perfectly. And parasitic losses are proportional to the amount of power you make. If your car makes just 100 ponies, you could lose another 20% with an AT over an MT. But if your car makes 500 ponies, that goes down to maybe 5-10%... new cars are approaching torque levels that make the differences moot.

For small cars with under 200 hp, it's still a valid debate... a Miata with a slushbox? Epic fail... just won't work. Between 200-300, it's debatable... some manufacturers claim DSGs are faster than true manuals, but there's testing evidence against this... but over 400 hp, I think the comparisions are moot, and it'll all come down to box programming.

Personally... I'm a manual lover. Nothing is sweeter than banging through the gears of a good car on a mountain road. But for really quick times, the less distractions a driver has, the more effort he can exert in placing the car millimeter perfect over the inside curb. It's something we've argued about at the driving school when using the GT5P rigs with a G25... I said, let them use the paddles... they said, make them use the shifter... for more realism... but what I'm more interested in seeing is how a contestant handles the car, racing line, technique, etcetera... rather than seeing them struggle to familiarize themselves with a sequential shifter none of them will ever use in real life.

---

Stock vs. Non-stock debate. Semi-non-issue. Many racetracks require a cage and sports seats (if your car's stock seats are not FIA-spec)... so these are modifications a car owner might make anyway if they wanted to go on track... lateral support is a valid difference, but I'm not familiar enough with the stock CTS-V seats to say whether or not they're too slippery for track or not... but most stock leather seats are.
 
I believe this CTS-V has suede-backed seats to end the slippery factor. I may be mistaken. Either way, with all that stuff in or out of the car, it isn't as though it would effect the overall performance of the car by that much. I'm still surprised that the slushbox is the fastest, much the same with Porsche and their arguement that its the best way to get the 997 Turbo. Its not the way I'd go about things, but alas, what works... Works.

I guess now I'm very interested in how quick they've got that 6L80E shifting to transfer the power that well... If its even coming close to that ZF box in the Jaguars. Would be interesting to be able to see how hard it is on the transmission too, but that being said, we already know GM transmissions generally don't give way (thats why BMW uses them), so I can't imagine it being too bad.
 
Actually, GM says no
Isn't the manual they're referring to there a conventional H-shifter? I'll grant that the modern automatic can be a quicker choice than a conventional manual, but I still wouldn't be caught dead in anything with a torque converter. There's more to driving than outright speed.

...computer operated clutches, except for the DSG, can't really match the smoothness of a good driver...
No question there. I love BMWs, but SMG is worthless. They need to hurry and finish their dual-clutch.

Anyway, I specifically referred to a dual-clutch sequential manual in my post on the last page for that reason. DSG (and any well-designed equivalent) is so smooth and shifts so quickly that I think it could easily replace the torque-converter automatic over the next 10-15 years...if they can start making them cheap enough. All the benefits of an automatic, all of the advantages of a manual -- no compromises.

Sure, he may have an extra 10-20 hp parasitic loss, but he doesn't have to worry about as many things as the guy balancing gearshifts, steering and brakes (with or without a clutch).
But that's what makes driving fun. :lol:

And if you program the AT perfectly, it can shift seamlessly up or down for you, giving you both maximum acceleration and braking.
Can a torque converter even offer lift-off deceleration like that, or is it just making sure you're in the right gear for corner exit?

I'm still surprised that the slushbox is the fastest, much the same with Porsche and their arguement that its the best way to get the 997 Turbo. Its not the way I'd go about things, but alas, what works... Works.
In terms of acceleration, the Tiptronic 997 Turbo may be the best choice, but I'm still not convinced it's better around a track. I recently saw a Best Motoring race with a Tiptronic example on Tsukuba, and it seemed to be really suffering.

The additions were safety features put in place for a high speed run, something that a every day CTS-V wouldn't experience. the car is still in test mode so there is always a greater possibility of a failure that can spell disaster for the test driver. I'm sure many cars that go around the Ring have basic safety equipment on board as well.
Stock vs. Non-stock debate. Semi-non-issue. Many racetracks require a cage and sports seats (if your car's stock seats are not FIA-spec)... so these are modifications a car owner might make anyway if they wanted to go on track... lateral support is a valid difference, but I'm not familiar enough with the stock CTS-V seats to say whether or not they're too slippery for track or not... but most stock leather seats are.
Either way, with all that stuff in or out of the car, it isn't as though it would effect the overall performance of the car by that much.
I guess. It would still be better for them to go back and time a 100% stock run, if only to quell any naysayers.
 
I'd rather have the car in the hands of independent testers as well, so we may get it eventually. We've still got a while until the CTS-V is anywhere close to hitting the streets.
 
Isn't the manual they're referring to there a conventional H-shifter? I'll grant that the modern automatic can be a quicker choice than a conventional manual, but I still wouldn't be caught dead in anything with a torque converter. There's more to driving than outright speed.

Same here. Except that my hobby of reviewing has me driving a lot of ATs. Many suck, but some come close to being worth the trouble.

No question there. I love BMWs, but SMG is worthless. They need to hurry and finish their dual-clutch.

Anyway, I specifically referred to a dual-clutch sequential manual in my post on the last page for that reason. DSG (and any well-designed equivalent) is so smooth and shifts so quickly that I think it could easily replace the torque-converter automatic over the next 10-15 years...if they can start making them cheap enough. All the benefits of an automatic, all of the advantages of a manual -- no compromises.

True, true. DSGs can be packed more tightly, with bigger gears (since they're dual shaft...) which means less breakage, more durability, better packing, etcetera... of course, they're heavy, but in the grand scheme of things, with cars being absolute porksters nowadays, the differences aren't as significant as before.


But that's what makes driving fun. :lol:

Yeah, for those of us who actually know how to do it... :lol:

Can a torque converter even offer lift-off deceleration like that, or is it just making sure you're in the right gear for corner exit?

If it holds in-gear, it can offer decent lift-off engine braking. Depends on box programming.

In terms of acceleration, the Tiptronic 997 Turbo may be the best choice, but I'm still not convinced it's better around a track. I recently saw a Best Motoring race with a Tiptronic example on Tsukuba, and it seemed to be really suffering.

Likely. Track speed will depend on how responsive the box is...

I guess. It would still be better for them to go back and time a 100% stock run, if only to quell any naysayers.

👍
 
I was driving an auto Ranger today (company's work Ute), and I can put the throttle down and sometimes wait as long as 2sec before anything happens! That's just plain dangerous. I'll stick with manuals for now, plus as said they are more fun.
 
I don't think it's been mentioned here yet, but elsewhere on the internet people have been responding to this by referencing an old, fairly-well-known Audi RS4 laptime of 7'58", driven by Frank Stippler, an Audi DTM driver. It isn't exactly an official time, but then again, neither is the CTS-V's. What do you guys think?

Other, more desperate individuals have pointed out that cars like the M3 CSL (7'50") are technically two-door sedans, or that the X5 Le Mans (7'49") had four doors, making the CTS-V neither the fastest sedan nor the fastest four-door. It's funny that they're technically right, but that's just pushing it. :lol:
 
Hmmm, not sure. I'm not going to push it either way I suppose, but given that they managed to do roughly 8'00 with a slushbox in a car that likely weighs in around 4200 lbs... I'm impressed. But of course, I take it with a grain of salt as well.
 
I don't think it's been mentioned here yet, but elsewhere on the internet people have been responding to this by referencing an old, fairly-well-known Audi RS4 laptime of 7'58", driven by Frank Stippler, an Audi DTM driver. It isn't exactly an official time, but then again, neither is the CTS-V's. What do you guys think?

Other, more desperate individuals have pointed out that cars like the M3 CSL (7'50") are technically two-door sedans, or that the X5 Le Mans (7'49") had four doors, making the CTS-V neither the fastest sedan nor the fastest four-door. It's funny that they're technically right, but that's just pushing it. :lol:

The LeMans was a production of... what? One? :lol:... but that was a truly awesome truck... too bad BMW never made it a production model... I would love to have driven one. :D :D :D

Strange thing about the M3... that's technically true... it is a sedan... just a two-door one.

Of course, it's all marketing. Being the "fastest" in your Nurb category is bragging rights for any manufacturer. But still, it's a good result for a big, slushbox car...
 
cts-v-preview-1280-09_opt.jpg


All of the goodies are right here...

The basics:

- The CTS-V will hit 60 MPH in 3.9 seconds
- She'll also do 118 MPH in the quarter-mile...
- Top speed of 175 MPH in the slushbox
- Top speed of 191 MPH with the stick [!]

I think their goal of "blowing the M5's doors off" has been achieved...
 
I've eased up on Cadillac in recent times. Ever since wanting to appeal to a "younger audience," Cadillac has been making some cars that are pretty powerful. I've always knocked newer Cadillacs for too many lines in their design as well as being too tall. They've just haven't been appealing to me. Nowadays, I've grown a bit more fond of Cadillacs. I guess you tend to get used to cars after a while. You even begin to like them a bit. I still wouldn't want a Cadillac, but at least these cars know what get-up-and-go is all about. It will be interesting to see what would happen at a car dealership when one person has to choose between getting a BMW M5 or a Cadillac CTS-V. Cadillac sets their standards to take on BMW, and they might have just built that better mouse trap to woo American buyers away from BMW and going to Cadillac (Post #136 is what I'm referring to). I'd still get a BMW for the heritage and that "know what you're getting" quality. I've still eased up on Cadillac... just very far away from me saying, "I'd prefer a Cadillac over a _____."
 
It didn't really blow the doors of the M5 though. Sure it's got a quick 0-60 time over the M5's 4.1 seconds. But the M5 will do 195 if you take the limiter off. Yes the CTS-V is quick and it's a real competitor, I'm not disagreeing with that.
 
They threw all that power and all that torque at it, and that is all they achieved? Just how ungodly heavy is this car? The old CTS-v was far better off performance wise to the old M5, and the power gap between those two was much narrower.
 
They threw all that power and all that torque at it, and that is all they achieved? Just how ungodly heavy is this car? The old CTS-v was far better off performance wise to the old M5, and the power gap between those two was much narrower.

I believe it tips the scales at a scant 4,300 pounds.
 
cts-v-preview-1280-09_opt.jpg


All of the goodies are right here...

The basics:

- The CTS-V will hit 60 MPH in 3.9 seconds
- She'll also do 118 MPH in the quarter-mile...
- Top speed of 175 MPH in the slushbox
- Top speed of 191 MPH with the stick [!]

I think their goal of "blowing the M5's doors off" has been achieved...
I'm sorry, but when did Chevrolet hire the SVT guys to develop their CTS-V? Seriously, 550Bhp, and this is what we have to look at? As Joey pointed out, the 500Bhp V10 in a M5 is capable of near 200Mph (as shown by the M6), and is only restricted from that 200Mph because of the M5's sedan body.
The Quarter Mile speed is better though (5Mph faster than the M5), but what's the time it achieved it in?

But honestly, to have an extra 50Bhp and yet only be capable of beating the M5 to 60 in just .2 seconds or being around 4Mph slowed in top speed? If this really is true, the extra 216lbs* the CTS-V has over the M5 is a real performance hurter for the Caddy.

*Curb weight; I could not find a solid weight figure for the M5.
 
Its the same for the CTS-V... Henricy in the video says that with a little over a half-tank of gas that it clocks in just shy of 4300 lbs. It is not a lightweight sedan by any means...
 
Its the same for the CTS-V... Henricy in the video says that with a little over a half-tank of gas that it clocks in just shy of 4300 lbs. It is not a lightweight sedan by any means...
Well, imo, it should be. The US needs more lightweight performers instead of just the Vettes & Vipers....
 
Straight line performance is one thing... going 'round corners like an "M" car is another. 4300lbs is a whole lotta Rosie to haul around, no matter what GM and the biased mags and forum members are going to say.
 
I take it you guys are quoting american style 0-60 figures cause last time I knew the M5 didnt do 0-60 in 4.1 secs and I would doubt the a car in the nature of the cts-v would do it in 3.9 either.

So it has the straightline prowess to overcome the M5, but what about the corners. Cant wait to see independant reviews.
 
well 4.1 and 4.7 secs is a bit of a difference one being closer to 4 and the other closer to 5.
 
There's never been a factory four door GTR. But you can get non GTR Skyline saloons of R32 and R34 vintage.

I swore I've seen a yellow R33 GT-R saloon...I think it was even in one of the GT games. But anyway, irregardless of that fact the R33 still is the sexiest Skyline by far. The R34 comes close as does the C110 and R30 (yes I love those too)

800px-Nissan_Skyline_C111_2000_GTX-E_001.jpg


Nissan_Skyline_1983_RS.jpg


DR30-01.jpg


My god those are sexy.

I don't think it's been mentioned here yet, but elsewhere on the internet people have been responding to this by referencing an old, fairly-well-known Audi RS4 laptime of 7'58", driven by Frank Stippler, an Audi DTM driver. It isn't exactly an official time, but then again, neither is the CTS-V's. What do you guys think?

Other, more desperate individuals have pointed out that cars like the M3 CSL (7'50") are technically two-door sedans, or that the X5 Le Mans (7'49") had four doors, making the CTS-V neither the fastest sedan nor the fastest four-door. It's funny that they're technically right, but that's just pushing it. :lol:

I think I'd take the Audi in a bllionth of a nanosecond compared to the new CTS-V. And I find that the M3 2dr is a coupe no matter what anyone says, and the X5 does have four doors--but isn't a saloon.

cts-v-preview-1280-09_opt.jpg


All of the goodies are right here...

The basics:

- The CTS-V will hit 60 MPH in 3.9 seconds
- She'll also do 118 MPH in the quarter-mile...
- Top speed of 175 MPH in the slushbox
- Top speed of 191 MPH with the stick [!]

I think their goal of "blowing the M5's doors off" has been achieved...

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96035

BMW M5 -- Caddy CTS-V
4.1s 0-60 (Road&Track) vs 3.9s 0-60 (aledgedly)
12.3 @ 115mph vs 12.0 (aledgedly) @ 118mph
195mph vs 191mph

Those aren't exactly "blowing the doors off" the M5. And the CTS-V has a couple of problems other than being rubbish on the inside (sat in a new CTS and found it as cheap as ever) is the fact that the auto is better around a track than the 6spd manual is a bit daft, its way too heavy (+300lbs more than the M5), and come on its HIDEOUS.

They threw all that power and all that torque at it, and that is all they achieved? Just how ungodly heavy is this car? The old CTS-v was far better off performance wise to the old M5, and the power gap between those two was much narrower.

+1 Agreed completely.
 
JCE
I swore I've seen a yellow R33 GT-R saloon...I think it was even in one of the GT games. But anyway, irregardless of that fact the R33 still is the sexiest Skyline by far. The R34 comes close as does the C110 and R30 (yes I love those too)

800px-Nissan_Skyline_C111_2000_GTX-E_001.jpg


Nissan_Skyline_1983_RS.jpg


DR30-01.jpg


My god those are sexy.
R30 = :drool:

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96035

BMW M5 -- Caddy CTS-V
4.1s 0-60 (Road&Track) vs 3.9s 0-60 (aledgedly)
12.3 @ 115mph vs 12.0 (aledgedly) @ 118mph
195mph vs 191mph

Those aren't exactly "blowing the doors off" the M5. And the CTS-V has a couple of problems other than being rubbish on the inside (sat in a new CTS and found it as cheap as ever) is the fact that the auto is better around a track than the 6spd manual is a bit daft, its way too heavy (+300lbs more than the M5), and come on its HIDEOUS.
Those figures are quite disappointing, and really shows the CTS-V has got way too much fat on it.

I don't think BMW will be losing any sleep over the CTS-V, now.
 

Latest Posts

Back