Caddy CTS-V the new epitome of a musclecar?

[neday15]

Think about it... take a RATHER plain-jane sedan, and stuff a FREAKIN HUGE engine in it... doesn't this become the new american musclecar? Think about the old road runners, and all the other sedans from the 60s that could be ordered with those big engines. The only difference is, the CTS-V can handle with the best of them, making it a worthy evolution of the american musclecar formula. People have called the new caddy the four-door corvette, and I think it's awesome. How bout yall...?

[nthfinity]

tis quite awsome, one of my friends is thinking about buying one...(im trying to persuade him). it isnt, however, a muscle car for the same reason the Corvette isnt. to be a muscle car, it must be a 2 door, 4 seat coupe with a front engine, and rear drive. this is well set in stone, and i didnt make the rules.
im wondering if the CTS-V will own the DTM series, or fail like the cadilac prototype la manns did? the CTS-V pushes .9 g's on the rictor scale, which, if my memory serves, is a wee more then the M5, but i do believe it is impossible to make a better driver's car then BMW.... they are simply spectacular!

[neday15]

Well...it's going to be racing against cars more like M3s, and in the racing form has 500 horses...We know it handles well, that's what all the car mags are sayin... And it DEFINITELY has the power to be a contender...So it's got more of a chance than the LMP had, that's for sure. I've also been thinking about gettin one, but can't decide between it and an Audi S4. Right now I'm leanin towards the Audi. Whatcha think

[nthfinity]

id go with the caddy; nuless you're living in the arctic north, and you dont have a "daily driver"
if i had a CTS-6, i wouldnt need cafeen in the morning. its faster then an S4 too.. . but performance doesnt matter. i know i wish i had the $$ to have an option set like that lol. well im on that subject, id go with a 2002 T/A WS6, and build up that 5.7 block with the remaining money. nut thats just my opinion :-D

[godspeed06]

i wouldn't call it a muscle car. i'd call it whatever people call and M3. and the cts-v will beat an M3 so it looks like the M3 won't be the standard of whatever people call the M3 anymore. damn, that was really ambiguous.

[richardbfields]

sweet car, another winner by GM!

[Fleischmann]

It has a rather futuristic body. It looks more like a concept than a car in production. But I really like it. And the 400BHP speak for itself. But in that price range, I think I'd stick with the Corvette.
And the car is basically invulnerable. In the film Matrix: Reloaded, one of the white-hair-guys stuffed it with 3 clips worth of lead....and it still rolled nicely :)

[blah]

they took a rather plain sedan and stook a V-8 in it twice already, they are called the M5, and E-55 AMG, Cadillac is too late to little. especially since BMWs new M5 is coming out, and Merc will come out with a E-55 replacement. Think about it, what does the Caddy give you? Name, no BMW has a much better racing history and nameplate, quailty? Hell no caddys are plastics piles.

[nthfinity]

Hell no caddys are plastics piles.

drive one. i havent yet, but my friend said its almost as fast as his slightly built up vette zr1 (about 485 whp)

[godspeed06]

they took a rather plain sedan and stook a V-8 in it twice already, they are called the M5, and E-55 AMG, Cadillac is too late to little. especially since BMWs new M5 is coming out, and Merc will come out with a E-55 replacement. Think about it, what does the Caddy give you? Name, no BMW has a much better racing history and nameplate, quailty? Hell no caddys are plastics piles.


i think you are forgetting that the cadillac gives similar performance for half the price.

[brian]

sharp looking car, but no interior space.... not a fan.

[DanHenderson]

The Cadillac CTS-V does get great performance for the buck. However, something else that nearly always seems to get overlooked is the gas mileage. At 16/25, it's almost the same as the pathetic little 3.2L V6 the CTS comes standard with that only gives out 220 hp/220 tq, and the stupid thing they bored out of the Catera "recommends" premium just like the LS6, and all of this from an engine that has the same dimensions as a Nissan VQ.

Also for comparison, the 3.2 I6 in the M3 333 hp/262 tq for 16/24 (and -67 hp and -128 tq) , the old M5 was 394 hp/368 tq for a completely miserable 13/21! That's Dodge Viper mileage and that's a V10! The only decent one out of the group mentioned is the E55 AMG at 469 hp/516 tq and it's 14/21. Of course, for an extra $30,000 the damn thing should spank every sedan in it's class.

And with everyone upgrading, so's GM. The new Corvette is getting the new LS2 V8 which does exactly the same as the above LS6. By next year the LS7 will be out and if it's like the LS1/6 difference, it'll probably add an extra 50 hp to the top.

So, for about $50,000 I get a CTS-V that beats an M5 in performance for $23,000 less and has a backseat you could be comfortable in (unlike any 3 series). For about an extra $5,000 or so similarly equipped, you can get an M3 that's a coupe with a very small backseat that you'll hurt yourself trying to get into it (and in that case, if you really want a fast couple, go buy a Corvette Z06 that costs the same and will spank it in every performance number).

[vanquish]

Well in US, European cars are of course much pricier. Could someone put prices in german of e55 and Vettes? MB costs more still, but how much?

One thing i hate in Motor Trend, and most other American car tests, is the fact that they test only 0-60, 1/4mile, skidpad, and top speed. Skidpad test doesnt tell much about its cornering abilities. Im more intrested in lap times and how the car behaves.

[hemi_fan]

muscle cars were affordable. The CTS-V isnt a cheap car, and plus it has 4 doors, so it doesnt really count.

[zr2man99]

Cadillac is making some impressive and awesome looking cars. The XLR is another great car from Caddi. There are doing a great job of moving away from the old mans car stereotype.

[Bigdaddytwon]

Is the CTS-V a muscle car.. i have to agree no... simply on historical basis

in 1955 Chrysler had the 300A with the the hemi in it.. At the time it was the most powerful american car you could buy. But the average man couldnt afford it, so the 1964 GTO is the first real musclecar.

The CTS-V did beat the M5's laptime on the Nurburgring by a couple of seconds (I think the M5 runs 8:20)
From what i've read in car and driver about GM's posted numbers on the car, they must've had someone rediculous driving it. They seem to have found a way around the axle hop that the CTS suffers from. Posting a 4.6 0-60 while C&D could only do 5.0. So i wonder how achievable the nurburgring times would be (basicly can the average person given a CTS-V and an M5 post better times in the CTS-V)

The current C&D article comparing the 2 is online at caranddriver.com, they also posted lap times.

[DanHenderson]

This month's Road and Track also had an article on the CTS-V and I believe they had an easier time with it. However, I can't find a link to that article.

[RC45]

I just glanced at a mag (can't remember which one) and the CTS-V posted slower numbers for ALL tests than they had hoped.

Slower 0-60, slowr 0-100, slower 1/4.

It was a 3 way comparo - M3 vs M5 vs CTS-V.

Let's hope GM hasn't messed with the car between original launch and the present time - and totally botched it.

I would never buy a Caddy new - they devalue too fast (bad for 1st time buyer - great for 2nd and 3rd buyer) - but as a used car the CTS-V would be a screaming deal. - But at it's new price it not very much of a bargain. And it is a piece of GM crap afterall.

[godspeed06]

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:19 pm Post subject:



I just glanced at a mag (can't remember which one) and the CTS-V posted slower numbers for ALL tests than they had hoped.

Slower 0-60, slowr 0-100, slower 1/4.


you neglected to mention the problems they had with the car which is one of the main reason they had trouble with it. mainly, a leaking tire and a faulty engine temp sensor so they couldn't drive the car to its limits.

[bowtie502]

i love it, suddle body changes, speed grills, wheels, LS6 and a 6speed, its greeaat.. i like it a lot the part that is so cool, yet different is that isa 4 door, fast four doors are becoming more popular but this is the first one i really like V8 6 sp, caddy.... yes

[Tomerville]

Muscle Car? O dunno. The thing can own on the track. I mean, I guess the SVT Cobra R was a muscle/track car too. But it has badd reliability at the present moment. I remember reading a poor review of it in Car and Driver.

[RC45]

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:19 pm Post subject:



I just glanced at a mag (can't remember which one) and the CTS-V posted slower numbers for ALL tests than they had hoped.

Slower 0-60, slowr 0-100, slower 1/4.


you neglected to mention the problems they had with the car which is one of the main reason they had trouble with it. mainly, a leaking tire and a faulty engine temp sensor so they couldn't drive the car to its limits.

That's about par for the course considering the crap GM produces.

They cut cost corners so much - and quality control really sucks. Even on low volume models like the C5 Z06 they fucked up many, many cars with badly glued in windshields, side door jamb seal oozing out, badly aligned fender panels.

Not to mention the really bad paint work ... and then of course the repeat electrical and mechanical flaws in design and execution that are rampant throughout the C5 line up - and the same goes for the rest of GM's line up.

And before nayone jumps to the "I know a buddy with a C5 that is fine -" --- the car is ok as an occasional weekend driver - but it really is not upto dialy driving - especially not BMW/Mercedes/Porsche build quality.

Just spend a day at a busy service center like I did at one time - speaking to MANY drivers with almost brand news cars - repeat problems.

Typical GM to supply a piece of crap to a magazine - imagine the car that goes into the cars they sell.. *NOT*

(the above truth does not however stop me from having a blast ripping the streets up in my over-priced fibreglass cavalier... ;) )

[bmagni]

its not a muscle car i think, wot i do think tis that caddy os goin great, n m5 better watch out

[Schwalbe]

a used car the CTS-V would be a screaming deal.


You have reason RC45.

I cannot buy a BMW M5 (too expensive), but on the other hand, a CTS V-Series used of two years is in my prices.

Concerning the question: Caddy CTS-V the new epitome of a musclecar? I say yes.

[Vansquish]

I'd say it's the epitome of the sleeper (other than the M5, E55, RS6 etc...) rather than the musclecar, it doesn't have the right proportions and it's a 4 door 5 seater rather than a big honking coupe with a massive, massively powerful engine.

[sameerrao]

I had a close look at the car during the Houston car show. it has some nice features - cool wheels, roomy interior, ducts for the front brakes, Z06 engine. All together a good offering for the money. I wiish they had put a few more bucks into the interior texture - the dash material looks like it came on a $12000 Corolla. Pretty poor.