The all-new Cadillac CTS-V will have the new corvette ZR-1's supercharged 6.2 liter V-8 and have somewhere between 550 to 620 horsepower depending on how Caddy wants to place it. Chip and pulley tuning guys will have a ball with it. Benz/Audi/BMW are going to have to counter with much faster cars than the C63/RS4/M3 to keep up with it. And finally they will offer a paddle shift trans in addition to the manual trans.

http://www.caranddriver.com/autoshow...lac-cts-v.html

 

hmm cant wait to give a test drive when it comes out, i dont want to sell the E ever but that car kind of makes me want to

 

That will be a fun car. I wonder if it will come with an automatic. Limiting it to a manual transmission would great reduces the extent to which the CTS-V will steal customers from Benz/AMG.

 

They say it'll have both a manual 6 spd option and a paddle-shift 6 speed auto as well. This is a great time to be in the market for powerful cars!

 

It does not have the ZR1 engine, it has the LSA motor. ZR1 engines will be hand built in the same plant as LS7s in Wixom, whereas the LSAs will be line produced. While I dont think GM will advertise this car with more or same power as ZR1, i wouldnt be surprised if it puts down 550 to the wheels. 6 piston calipers front, 4 piston rear, 14 way adjustable recaro seats, 6sp auto or 6sp Tremec 6060 dual plate from ZR1, nav with 40gb drive.

high res gallery here
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/detro...-cts-v/556400/

interior pic here
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/detro...v/556418/full/

 

edmunds.com has the best article

I think its a great product!

good job GM!

 

A $60,000 base sounds to good to be true.

 

It will have a 6 speed paddle shift as well as a manual, just like I said in my original post. They brought the power down to "only" 550 HP and 550 lb/ft of torque so as to not **** off ZR-1 owners. Below I will post up the links to pics of the interior, which is very nice with that grippy faux-suede material for the seats and steering wheel. It will have nice Brembo brakes and should hit 60 in 3.5 easily (since the C63 can hit 60 in 3.9 with over 100 less horsepower).

http://cwimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pb...tem=5&Maxw=600

http://cwimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pb...tem=6&Maxw=600

http://cwimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pb...tem=7&Maxw=600

http://cwimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pb...tem=1&Maxw=600

http://cwimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pb...tem=2&Maxw=600

http://cwimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pb...tem=4&Maxw=600

The looks are very aggressive,.... chip and pulley tuning should yield 650 HP right away, and that plus exhaust, filters, few other tidbits should put it at 700 maybe.

 

[The looks are very aggressive,.... chip and pulley tuning should yield 650 HP right away, and that plus exhaust, filters, few other tidbits should put it at 700 maybe.[/QUOTE]


I also love the look,(inside and out) but cast pistons, smaller blower, single intercooler etc etc are going to make it a lot more limited to max HP. Now the swap would be put on the ZR1 blower/intake/2 intercoolers. Pistons are the limiting factor as I see it. Just my .02

Would love to have one though!

 

0-60 in 3.5 seconds? no way. Don't forget that it weights almost 2 tons. 4.5 maybe. same goes for the AMG

 

I see your point and it makes sense also, but what about the zero to 60 MPH time of 3.9 seconds that the C63 has achieved? If it did this then doesn't it make sense that the CTS-V should be able to get .4 of a second faster approximately, what with over 100 more horsepower and torque? Oh well, maybe you're right and they both will actually be a little less fast in the real world.

 

.4 seconds is a significant difference. The corvette Z06 will do around 3.6 on a 0-60 run but it weights less then 3200lbs and it has a huge amount of rubber to grip it on the take-off with its 335mm rear tires. Where did you see that the C63 ran a 0-60 in 3.9 seconds? It also makes a difference what time of pavement there was.

 

Agreed. Keep in mind that you're talking about more than a 10% reduction. Keep in mind that NO car can do 0-60 in 1 second, and they're getting pretty damn close to one second. I am old enough to remember when a quick car was breaking 10 seconds (thank you Jimmy Carter). Under 4 seconds is insanely fast, and each 10th of a second lower is HUGE reduction.

The same is true in top speeds. Adding an additional 1MPH at 100 MPH is easy. Adding another 1MPH at 180MPH is much harder.

 

Car and Driver got the 3.9 seconds to 60 MPH result from the C63. here's the link below:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...z-c63-amg.html

 

Ok I saw the article but I have to say there is no way that the 3.9 is correct.
I love the car but I know it's not that fast. They tested the Z06 at 3.7 from 0-60 and it's 800lbs lighter, more powerful with more rubber.

 

I've driven the Z06 and getting the sixty time takes work, but it will definitely hit it in les than 4 secs... The C63 all you need to do is step on the gas

I had the 1st gen V and you could do 5 sec to 60 stock. I am sure that the new one will hit it in 4 sec. I don't see it getting to 60 much faster without some mods and rubber upgrades IMO...

 

That's true but it's still not doing it in 3.9, low 4's tops

 

the front looks like a squared off 2006 altima se-r

 

You might be able to do <4 sec if you have some really wide and sticky drag radials. Then you better also hope that GM put a better rear differential in this thing! I personally don't put much importance on 0-60 times though. Tires cost too damn much.

 

For those that read the article but haven't bothered with the test sheet .pdf, I think it's worth reviewing:

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/d...comparo_ts.pdf

Personally, I believe these test figures were actually realized by C&D with an actual C63 that they had available to test - I guess because I believe in the journalistic integrity of C&D... call me crazy...

As for the "the C63 can't be that fast because [insert other car here] is only a little quicker and on paper it should be a lot quicker" - a lot of cars' test figures don't match up with what they SHOULD be, on paper... that's the whole point of testing them, isn't it? Switching mag's for a moment, if you look over R&T's "Road Test Summary" at the back of their mag, you find several examples of this - one in particular:

CLK63BS - 3810 lbs, 507 hp, 464 ft/lb, sticky DOT R rubber, 0-60 4.1, 0-100 9.6, 1/4 in 12.4 @115.0

E63 AMG Wagon - 4510 lbs, 507 hp, 465 ft/lb, performance tires (presumably summer tires), 0-60 4.1, 0-100 9.5, 1/4 in 12.4 @ 114.8

So the E63 Wagon, which has the same power but weighs 700 lbs more, on worse tires, runs an identical 0-60, a FASTER 0-100, and an identical 1/4 mi time as the CLK63BS? Does this make sense? No... but does that mean that the numbers are wrong (or fabricated)? No, it doesn't. Who knows, maybe luck of the draw, R&T got a particularly strong E63 Wagon, or a weaker-than-normal CLK63BS for their test-car. Maybe conditions were different, which favored the E63 Wagon. Could be a lot of things - so to look at the C63's 0-60 time of 3.9 and just flat out say "that number isn't real" is a bit closed-minded, don't you think?

However, I will say this - on average, I think the C63's 0-60 capability will fall somewhere in the low 4s. Breaking 4 would be really really tough, but may be POSSIBLE with ideal launch and conditions.

 

I cant wait to drive one on the track.. I drove a CTS-V (non-supercharged) and was very pleased.

 

here are some crazy 0-60 mph times from car and driver.

0-60 in 3.6 seconds 2004 SL600
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html

0-60 in 3.8 seconds 2005 SL65 with tons of wheels spin
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html

0-60 in 4.9 seconds 2007 SL550 (times are in the magazine itself)
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...-currency.html

0-60 in 4.2 seconds 2007 E63
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...-currency.html

0-60 in 4.8 seconds 2007 E550
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...-m-b-e550.html

0-60 in 4.0 seconds 2008 CLK63 Black series
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ck-series.html

0-60 in 4.6 seconds 2007 ML63
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...knoxville.html

 

I never trust 0-60 times from C&D, they're always blown way out of proportion. Sorry guys but a 3.9 for the C63 ain't happening. It's pretty obvious they're using some sort of steam catapult system a la the USS Eisenhower.

 

R&T and C&D's times for the CLK63BS were almost identical (4.1 vs 4.0), R&T was also able to hustle a heavy-as-hell E63 WAGON 0-60 in 4.1 - I don't think 3.9 for the C63 would be easy to achieve, but I wouldn't simply dismiss it either. We'll see once some drag-racing owners get their hands on 'em, but I bet a perfect launch and conditions could yield a number like that.

 

Also bear in mind that these 63's seem to run their finest after settling in with a few thousand miles under the belt. The 452bhp rating is, as usual, underrated as a marketing gimmick to justify the upper class AMG V8 sales. Judging solely by the specs and reviews, this seem to be one helluva a toy with some potential to be a rockstar. Some light modifications and slicks would make this interesting. As for the Caddy, I am impressed with the whole package, and give Kudos to GM for entering this already stacked market segment pretty hard, but feel this CTSV needs some very fat slicks to reign in all that supercharged insta-torque!