As an owner of a highly modified Gen 1 CTS-V (Magnuson blower @7psi, intake, headers, exhaust, throttle body, tune) I can say that Cadillac is really on the right track. Mine had differential issues from the Gen 1 wheel hop (and 480whp/460tq) but they've more than taken care of that issue on the current one. I used to pass Lotus, 996's, Astons, etc on the road course all the time.

 

I wasn't talking about the track, but in the 99.9% reality of how these cars will be used. CTS-V is a great performer for the money but a Panamera Turbo & especially the Turbo S beats it in almost every way. I'm not a fan of the P-cars looks but you can't deny it embarasses almost all "sports cars."

 

Politics my ***! Porsche has long been known for underestimating their performance times and this has been substantiated time after time when the auto mags get to wring these things out. I've yet to see a test of the CTS-V match the numbers Caddy claims. I'm sure there's some, but for at least a year, Caddy's ad about the CTS-V being "the fastest sedan in the world" has been bull****. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that Caddy had the stones to make it compete with some of the biggest names in the game. If you want a super-sedan for the least money, it's your ticket.

 

I'd love to see the Panamera beat the CTS-V while carrying 5 passengers...like a proper 'sedan'.

 

I believe track times do a great job of exposing all real world attributes of a car. You accelerate, brake and turn in the real world, correct?

I was shocked to see the CTS-V just behind both the Panamera and 911 Turbo's on the ring......for half the money. My goal was just to point out that it does not "leave the CTS-V for dead" as you had mentioned previous and I had assumed untill doing a little research on the facts.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...794f21629b.pdf

Not sure what claims haven't been met. Both Car & Driver and Road & Track have tested the CTS-V (automatics) to 0-60 in 3.9s and 12.2s 1/4 mile times. Technically the CTS-V manuals have a top speed of 191mph. So it is still "faster" than a Panamera Turbo S's 190mph top speed (which also has a base price of over $100K more than a CTS-V). I guess the Bentley Flying Spur might have claim to the "fastest sedan" record, with a 200mph top speed. However, Cadillac qualified their claim by saying "fastest production sedan". Maybe they don't consider the Flying Spur to be a "production sedan", but I would think it is....

Tom

 

Lol.

Then "those" arent real sports cars which are complete trash and a waste of $ to a true car guy. That sedan cant beat any real sports cars.

Also theres the fact that the panamera looks like straight **** - a subaru forester on steroids. I admit, if you dump 8k on some nice wheels, 4k on suspension and 10k on a buddy kit it starts to look descent. Ill pass thank you.

a Real car guy would choose the cts-v > the panamera even if the price of the panamera was 70k too.

 

IMHO, the only reason to choose the Panamera over a car like the CTS-V is if you NEED to have AWD in a daily driver. I do...sorta. But then that's why I bought a Cayenne Turbo for my daily and a 997 Turbo for my fun car.

 

1) You can't carry 5 real people in a CTS-V. My friend has 3 kids 8-13 and they aren't big kids, and they barely fit in the back.
2) No one, and I repeat, no one, can drive their car on the street for any legitimate period of time like it's driven on a track to get maximum times. It makes for good objective comparisons of cars overall performance when done on the same track/day/driver, but tells us NOTHING about the subjective nature of how the car actually drives in the real world.
3) In Caddy's ads, they do not mention top-speed but 0-60 and it's not the fastest at either. I've seen plenty of magazine tests where it's on the other side of 4. Bench racing at best because it's a few tenths here or there. It's still plenty fast IMO.
4) Panamera looks aren't great but besides the rear, it's not horrible. It does embarrass "real" sports cars unless your list only includes GTR, 911 TT, 458, G, etc.
5) I wouldn't buy a Panamera Turbo or S at it's current price, but might consider it if it were priced closer to a CTS-V. Statement of a "real car guy" only choosing CTS-V over Panamera is idiotic. It's a PORSCHE. Cadillac doesn't have a fraction of the pedigree in this arena or racing if you want to go there.
6) I like the CTS-V and hope Caddy keeps it going in subsequent versions because it will push other manufacturers in their sports sedans.

 

wow, I just realized just how amazing this is.....

We are talking about a Caddy here and listening to a car guy say that in the real world on the road it is "left for dead" by the Panamera Turbo but not on the track. The track does not show "the subjuctive nature" of driving the car every day.

When would anyone have imagined that a Caddy would begin to embarrass at the track, while the Porsche was superior on the road? (left for dead is still a bit much)

hmmmmm

You know what? Good for GM. A true hot rod in a suit on sale.

 

I remember waxing a Porsche not to long ago on the highway in a CTS-V I was testing. Pretty cool. Porsche's for Breakfast, Ferrari's for Lunch,...or something along the lines of that. I think it's pretty cool Cadillac is in the game on the streets,..and on the road course.

 

I just watched a 2006 MERCEDES S65 on a track near my home beat the 2010 CTS-V in 1/4 mile runs 3 straight times. I think the best the v ran was very hi 12's.
The MERC had a curb weight of almost 4,500 lbs.......... AMAZING!!!

 

Do you know if the CTS-V was a manual or automatic? Also, having owned a CL65, I know that an ECU tune makes a huge difference...and anyone who is bringing an S65 might be more likely to have an ECU tune on their 65.

For what it is worth, my CTS-V (9.55" lower pulley, headers w/HFC, x-pipe, upgraded H/E, ECU/TCU tunes, and CAI) runs 60-130mph in 7.71s compared to my CL65 (Kleemann ECU tune, BMC drop-in filters and Johnson CM030 I/C pump) which ran 8.45s 60-130mph. My lightly modded GT-R (COBB generic Stage 2 93 octane tune, AAM resonated mid-pipe and HKS drop-in filters) ran the same exact 8.45s 60-130mph as my CL65 (although the GT-R ran from a dead stop and accelerated through while the CL65 rolled on starting at about 40mph).

The CTS-V is pretty easy/cheap to modify. When you go part throttle you wouldn't really know it is modified.

Tom

 

Ummm, well for $190,000, it had better.
Or, you can look at it another way...For another $130,000 above the V.....

Bottom line: Look what at all the peeps here are comparing to the V....

 

Last I checked you can buy a nice 06 S65 for under 50k