Faster than an M5: First Cadillac CTS-V performance test published

[Lamar]

In the marketplace, you will see more higher displacement OHV engines compared to OHC engines, mainly because OHV engines are used more often in full-size trucks and SUV's, while OHC engines are used more often in cars and crossovers. This is likely because truck and SUV engines only need torque down low, and customers don't expect them to rev very high or generate lots of high end power. OHV engines are cheaper so they are the natural choice in these applications.

Strangely enough, the largest-displacement engines in any vehicle on the market that I can think of are in the Corvette Z06 and in the Viper SRT-10. Of course, the Veyron displaces more than the 'Vette, but with twice as many cylinders.

[97regalGS]

what got passed over quite quickly and should be more alarming and concerning is the fact that Cadillac does not command the price premium of MB and BMW. end of story.

when you guys get done arguing about how the valves get opened, why doesn't the topic move towards the above comment. I can assure you, the answer is not where the cam is located.

[Lamar]

One more thing about why the CTS doesn't have a large displacement DOHC V8... I remember hearing somewhere that the current N* V8 wouldn't fit into the engine bay. So what good would a larger-displacement engine do?

when you guys get done arguing about how the valves get opened, why doesn't the topic move towards the above comment. I can assure you, the answer is not where the cam is located.

Yes sir, Deputy Dog.

BMW and MB charge that much because they can... they know people will buy them. Not because the cars are worth it, but because the badging and the plane ticket from Germany are apparently worth it. Sorta like these bland $7 sandwiches that people go buy...

I remember when my mother bought her E-Class for $30K, new, back in '94. She couldn't even buy a C-Class for that same price today. Yes, I know prices have inflated in 14 years, but that's a 74% jump. Not all of it is due to technological advancement, either... brands just know that they can tack on "reputation" or "brand cache" charges.

Cadillac, and for that matter Lincoln, still has to lift itself out of the hole it dug for itself for much of the past 20something years. They're making progress, as I feel Caddy has the best lineup now than they ever had in the past 10 years... but they still have a ways to go.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Lamar

[siegen]

when you guys get done arguing about how the valves get opened, why doesn't the topic move towards the above comment. I can assure you, the answer is not where the cam is located.

Hey, how the valves are opened is crucially important. It's like the most important part of the car. After all, only cavemen use pushrods to open their valves. Like poking at a door with a broom stick. Lol j/k.

In all seriousness, the biggest cost difference between the M5 and CTS-V is likely the engine. If GM developed a high output variable lift DOHC V8 for the car, the price would likely inflate another $10,000. And it probably wouldn't really change the opinion of most buyers at all. GM probably made the right decision using a FI OHV engine.

But how sweet would it be if there was a naturally-aspirated 6.0 liter DOHC V8 in there, with an 8000rpm redline and developing 600HP. Imagine the sound it would make as the engine climbs towards 8000rpms, power increasing steadily the whole way. It would be incredible.

[Ed Hellwig]

FYI - our full test is up with numbers for both the automatic and manual.

First Test: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V ?

To save you the trouble, automatic ran faster - 0-to-60mph in 4.0-seconds with rollout, 12.4 @ 115mph.

Enjoy,

EH

[2QuickZ's]

I have driven an LS1 Firebird, a friend has an LS1 Corvette, which I haven't driven, but the engine sounds loud and harsh compared to a Northstar or Euro DOHC V8. I own a DOHC V8, I would never buy a pushrod from any manufacturer.

Mercedes has a 6.5 liter SOHC V12 with 738 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 RM, so OHC didn't limit it's displacement any, and it surely doesn't limit torque any. The CTS-V has a pushrod for one reason and it is cost. It was cheaper for Cadillac to put a supercharger on an Escalade/Vette motor than to develop an engine from scratch.

I should have been more specific and stated the latest generation LS series engine such as the LS3. There have been multiple generations. An F-body is a very poor example when judging loud and harsh. I know because I own one. I'd argue that they are loud and harsh because that is what your average pony car buyer wants hence why most put on even louder after market exhaust systems. I have no problem with you not wanting a push rod engine. I just don't agree with your assertion that they can't be made to feel as refined as a DOHC. You do realize much of the refined feel of a vehicle has more to do with how you dampen the inherent NVH, right?

As for the Mercedes arguement, it's SOHC which is more compact than DOHC due to smaller cylinder heads. It's also a turbocharged 6.0L, not a 6.5 and the forced induction is a big part of why it makes so much torque at such a low rpm since small bore engines are not known as torque monsters when n/a. Second, what vehicle is it in and what other Mercedes cars would it fit in? I guess any other S class? The fact that it is a V12 and not a V8 means it has a smaller bore for the same displacement. This means 12 cylinders = longer than comparable V8 but narrower. For OHC, narrow is better to get it to fit under a hood in RWD (longitudinal) applications.

OHC allows for more flexibility in head and valve design. There is less mass in the valvetrain in an OHC engine, and OHC engines can be designed to rev much higher than OHV engines.

1) Agree 100%, 2) disagree unless you meant inertia, 3) this is really related to the previous item and agree for racing applications but argue a push rod engine can rev as high as 99% of production car engines can or would. Overall I find my self more in agreement with your recent posts, though. They both have advantages and disadvantages. I just don't like when people make a blanket statement like, "OMG!!11!!1! OHC engines are so superior to push rods and are the only way to go!" and yet have no clue as to what does or doesn't make them better. OHC is simply not the beginning and end of quality engine design, though the sheeple have been convinced to believe it.

i see this thread went down the CIB vs OHC rat hole and is being argued by two guys who aren't exactly engineers.

If you are referring to me, I actually am an engineer and I work in the auto industry, though not in power train. While I would never claim to know everything, I actually do know the advantages and disadvantages of both valve trains. I just wanted to see if those arguing OHC new what they were. My guess is there were some google searches involved.

With that, I will leave the CIB vs OHC argument since it has detracted from the original intent of this thread.

Edited August 29, 2008 by 2QuickZ's

[97regalGS]

I should have been more specific and stated the latest generation LS series engine such as the LS3. There have been multiple generations. An F-body is a very poor example when judging loud and harsh. I know because I own one. I'd argue that they are loud and harsh because that is what your average pony car buyer wants hence why most put on even louder after market exhaust systems. I have no problem with you not wanting a push rod engine. I just don't agree with your assertion that they can't be made to feel as refined as a DOHC. You do realize much of the refined feel of a vehicle has more to do with how you dampen the inherent NVH, right?

As for the Mercedes arguement, it's SOHC which is more compact than DOHC due to smaller cylinder heads. It's also a turbocharged 6.0L, not a 6.5 and the forced induction is a big part of why it makes so much torque at such a low rpm since small bore engines are not known as torque monsters when n/a. Second, what vehicle is it in and what other Mercedes cars would it fit in? I guess any other S class? The fact that it is a V12 and not a V8 means it has a smaller bore for the same displacement. This means 12 cylinders = longer than comparable V8 but narrower. For OHC, narrow is better to get it to fit under a hood in RWD (longitudinal) applications.

1) Agree 100%, 2) disagree unless you meant inertia, 3) this is really related to the previous item and agree for racing applications but argue a push rod engine can rev as high as 99% of production car engines can or would. Overall I find my self more in agreement with your recent posts, though. They both have advantages and disadvantages. I just don't like when people make a blanket statement like, "OMG!!11!!1! OHC engines are so superior to push rods and are the only way to go!" and yet have no clue as to what does or doesn't make them better. OHC is simply not the beginning and end of quality engine design, though the sheeple have been convinced to believe it.

If you are referring to me, I actually am an engineer and I work in the auto industry, though not in power train. While I would never claim to know everything, I actually do know the advantages and disadvantages of both valve trains. I just wanted to see if those arguing OHC new what they were. My guess is there were some google searches involved.

With that, I will leave the CIB vs OHC argument since it has detracted from the original intent of this thread.

wasn't referring to u

[97regalGS]

BMW and MB charge that much because they can...

shouldn't the same be said of Cadillac? Shouldn't the world's largest automaker be there too? Should a brand whose motto was Standard of the World be there? just asking.

They're making progress, as I feel Caddy has the best lineup now than they ever had in the past 10 years... but they still have a ways to go.

I'll agree the probably have their best lineup of late, but I'll argue that when you actually dig into it, it ain't all that impressive.

CTS - fantastic. Interior design is brilliant, front end is brilliant, rear a bit bland... engine is great. But for me, I will tell you that when you sit in it, it just doesn't 'feel' as great as I want it to. However, when you compare it to the similarly sized 5 Series, it uses price as a crutch.

STS - lame ass styling, a sales dud. V8 is antiquated. why would anyone buy a STS over a CTS???

SRX - brillant vehicle, but sales failure. prob looks a little too wagony compared to competition and was priced to high out of the gate.

DTS - left over FWD boat that sells well in Florida

XLR - decent car for a Cadillac, but gets destroyed in comparison to the SL.

Escalade - caught a break with the rappers and the bling factor. but really, it's a huge ass truck that has the driving dynamics of a huge ass truck. and it's not a global product.

Mazda has a better lineup for Mazda than Cadillac does for Cadillac.

[deftonesfan867]

FYI - our full test is up with numbers for both the automatic and manual.

First Test: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V ?

To save you the trouble, automatic ran faster - 0-to-60mph in 4.0-seconds with rollout, 12.4 @ 115mph.

Enjoy,

EH

Yes I read this earlier, and can't wait to see the video. To smk, why do you post here? It seems like all you ever do is bash a GM product much like GXT bashes the Volt all the time. Seems to me like Mr. Hellwig has no problems w/ the LSA in the V, but yet you go blah blah blah GM is retarded for putting in a pushrod motor. Badge snobs are pathetic.

[deftonesfan867]

shouldn't the same be said of Cadillac? Shouldn't the world's largest automaker be there too? Should a brand whose motto was Standard of the World be there? just asking.

I'll agree the probably have their best lineup of late, but I'll argue that when you actually dig into it, it ain't all that impressive.

CTS - fantastic. Interior design is brilliant, front end is brilliant, rear a bit bland... engine is great. But for me, I will tell you that when you sit in it, it just doesn't 'feel' as great as I want it to. However, when you compare it to the similarly sized 5 Series, it uses price as a crutch.

STS - lame ass styling, a sales dud. V8 is antiquated. why would anyone buy a STS over a CTS???

SRX - brillant vehicle, but sales failure. prob looks a little too wagony compared to competition and was priced to high out of the gate.

DTS - left over FWD boat that sells well in Florida

XLR - decent car for a Cadillac, but gets destroyed in comparison to the SL.

Escalade - caught a break with the rappers and the bling factor. but really, it's a huge ass truck that has the driving dynamics of a huge ass truck. and it's not a global product.

Mazda has a better lineup for Mazda than Cadillac does for Cadillac.

Really? Because all the reviews I've seen say it handles almost as well as a sedan....

[smk4565]

Yes I read this earlier, and can't wait to see the video. To smk, why do you post here? It seems like all you ever do is bash a GM product much like GXT bashes the Volt all the time. Seems to me like Mr. Hellwig has no problems w/ the LSA in the V, but yet you go blah blah blah GM is retarded for putting in a pushrod motor. Badge snobs are pathetic.

I don't only bash GM product. I have complimented the good cars, and picked on the ones that are dated or uncompetitive. The CTS is good for it's price, but I disagree with comparing it to an E-class or 5-series. The CTS doesn't base at $50k and go up to $85-90,000. The is a reason the German sedans are $20,000 more, and it isn't only because of bagde/snob appeal. I don't even like Mercedes or BMW, my current favorite car is the Jaguar XF, but I've driven the current 5-series and the old 5-series and I recognize that BMW makes a great handling car with a great engine. The styling, interior and iDrive are no good, but it drives well enough to forget about how ugly the trunk is.

The MotorTrend review made a great point about how Chrysler could put a Viper engine in a 300C and crush everyone in power, but would anyone buy it? The CTS-V's performance numbers make it belong with the Germans, but at $20k less they are leaving something out, and GM didn't price it like that because they are in the charity business, they need all the profit they can get. If Cadillac says it is better than an M5, they should price it higher than an M5. I would love to see Cadillac make a car better than an S-class or a car better than the 3-series, but they are non existent and they came up with a Vue-style crossover instead.

[Lamar]

I'll agree the probably have their best lineup of late, but I'll argue that when you actually dig into it, it ain't all that impressive.

CTS - fantastic. Interior design is brilliant, front end is brilliant, rear a bit bland... engine is great. But for me, I will tell you that when you sit in it, it just doesn't 'feel' as great as I want it to. However, when you compare it to the similarly sized 5 Series, it uses price as a crutch.

STS - lame ass styling, a sales dud. V8 is antiquated. why would anyone buy a STS over a CTS???

SRX - brillant vehicle, but sales failure. prob looks a little too wagony compared to competition and was priced to high out of the gate.

DTS - left over FWD boat that sells well in Florida

XLR - decent car for a Cadillac, but gets destroyed in comparison to the SL.

Escalade - caught a break with the rappers and the bling factor. but really, it's a huge ass truck that has the driving dynamics of a huge ass truck. and it's not a global product.

Ever the optimist, I was comparing the current (and impending) Caddy lineup. Although I did like some of the FWD cars that it had (mainly the previous STS), things are definitely better now.

They've made progress, now let's see if they can make progress beyond that progress.

[Drew Dowdell]

at $20k less they are leaving something out,

Lets see:

$14,000 of engine technology that was obviously unnecessary.

$4,000 of exchange rate

$1,800 of badge snobbery

$200 of multi-function seat technology

[The O.C.]

Really? Because all the reviews I've seen say it handles almost as well as a sedan....

I would agree with almost all of 97regalGS's comments.......

CTS is doing fantastic!

Escalade is also doing fantastic (even with gas like it is) but only the shorty. EXT and ESVs are VERY slow. Driving the big Escalade IS a very nice thing.....GM has done wonders on the suspension tuning.....and it also doesn't ride to badly on the 22's. I wouldn't call it nimble, but it's as good as you could ever expect. The only bitch about the Slade, and it continues to be a HUGE turn-off to customers, is the lack of power-folding-into-the-cargo-area third row seats. The only customers that don't complain are previous Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade customers.

DTS is slow.....but still sells much faster than STS. But it is ONLY an older person's car unfortunately.

[The O.C.]

If Cadillac says it is better than an M5, they should price it higher than an M5. I would love to see Cadillac make a car better than an S-class or a car better than the 3-series, but they are non existent and they came up with a Vue-style crossover instead.

As a whole package, the STS-v is arguably better executed than a bone-stock STS.......but look at how (un)successful that car has been. We've had a gorgeous black-on-black STS-v in the showroom for 5 months.....can't even get anyone to LOOK at it.....

On the other hand, we have a HUGE waiting list for the CTS-v......and the customers on THIS list include a very fair share of AMG and M-series owners, younger import-driven guys, and so forth.....

CTS-v will be the biggest conquest/halo car that Cadillac will have ever had.....that's my prediction.....(especially with the performance numbers coming from road tests from edmunds.com and Road & Track....)

[pow]

I would agree with almost all of 97regalGS's comments.......

CTS is doing fantastic!

Escalade is also doing fantastic (even with gas like it is) but only the shorty. EXT and ESVs are VERY slow. Driving the big Escalade IS a very nice thing.....GM has done wonders on the suspension tuning.....and it also doesn't ride to badly on the 22's. I wouldn't call it nimble, but it's as good as you could ever expect. The only bitch about the Slade, and it continues to be a HUGE turn-off to customers, is the lack of power-folding-into-the-cargo-area third row seats. The only customers that don't complain are previous Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade customers.

DTS is slow.....but still sells much faster than STS. But it is ONLY an older person's car unfortunately.

Has there been a great deal of interest in the hybrid Escalade?

[The O.C.]

Has there been a great deal of interest in the hybrid Escalade?

No.

We just got pricing for it......$75K or $76K depending on if you have extra cost paint (white diamond, etc.) and the Hybrid only comes loaded.

However, we have four on order, all sold, all at window sticker........but we currently have no names on any sort of waiting list.

I'm not expecting us to get many of them at all.......for example, we have 65 Escalades in stock, and only have 4 Hybrids coming.

[deftonesfan867]

Just yesterday I saw a truck load of Hybrid GMT900's coming from the Arlington plant.