2016 CTS-V revealed

[kevm14]

Jaguar XFR-S = 4,405 lbs

Audi S6 =4,398 lbs

BMW M5 = 4,387 lbs

AMG E63 = 4,233 lbs

Cadillac CTS-V = 4,145 lbs

Chevrolet SS = 3,975 lbs

Of course the Hellcat is heavier than all of them. But look at where GM is at price to weight to performance. A very respectable showing.

[kevm14]

AW: http://autoweek.com/article/detroit-aut ... dailydrive

They remind us that the first CTS-V borrowed the Z06 engine, complete with RPO code (LS6). We'll ignore the 06-07 CTS-V which used a far more common engine (same output). Same car anyway. Then the 2016 CTS-V uses the Z06 engine, complete with RPO code (LT4) though it's a bit detuned. So the CTS-V2 used an engine a bit more common than the LS6 and LT4. The LSA was shared with the Camaro ZL1 and based on the LS9, but was different enough to warrant a new RPO. Then again, the ZR1 was a $100k car so that makes some sense. Also, like the transformation from LS9 to LSA, the LT4 in the CTS-V3 loses the dry sump from the Z06 LT4 (but without a change in RPO code - maybe the engine is basically the same otherwise.

I don't know what my point is, just mentioning things.

Cadillac felt a supercharged engine was the direction to go in the CTS-V, saying that as much as they love the turbo engine in the ATS-V, this car needed instant, smooth power.

“There’s still no replacement for a 6.2-liter V8,” said chief engineer Tony Roma.

Explain why the ATS-V didn't also need instant, smooth power (LT1). Sigh. Would have been interesting to have both versions on the street at the same time but I know as far as vehicle integration, that's kind of ridiculous. The closest thing we have to that wish is the CTS Vsport (essentially the ATS-V engine) and now this CTS-V3, but it's the LT4 instead of the LT1. Eh.

Anyway, have I mentioned this thing looks awesome?

[kevm14]

C/D: http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-c ... -info-news

A track-focused obsession permeates every crevice of the CTS-V. Compared with the 3.6-liter V-6 CTS’s duo of heat exchangers—one’s the radiator, the other is part of the air-conditioning compressor—the V comes festooned with an additional five. There is a standard rear differential cooler, which shares its coolant circuit with the transmission’s oil cooler, as well as an engine-oil cooler, an auxiliary intercooler, and an auxiliary radiator. These exchangers are tucked behind and underneath bodywork massaged to make trips deep into triple digits drama-free affairs. Everything forward of the V’s A-pillar is unique, including the carbon-fiber hood, the vented fenders widened by 0.8 inch in total, the chin splitter, and the aggressive fascia with Cadillac’s signature chain-mail grille inserts. A trunklid lip spoiler aids downforce, and a rear diffuser is the final stop for air traveling along the CTS-V’s nearly flat underbody.

They can afford more of these go-fast differences since the price will be higher. Plus the bespoke body parts (same deal).

[kevm14]

Just a single staggered-width wheel-and-tire package will be offered—although three finishes are available for the wheels—with modest 19-inch forged-aluminum wheels wrapped in sticky Michelin Pilot Super Sport summer rubber. (Cadillac believes that limiting the wheel size and breadth of choice makes it possible to develop its V models’ suspensions with fewer compromises; the 2015 ATS-V coupe and sedan are similarly “focused.”)

Awesome.

You might be surprised to learn that the V doesn’t even offer carbon-ceramic brake rotors, but Cadillac tells us that sufficiently sized ceramics would have dictated larger wheels and cost a ton of money. (Cadillac’s people are quick to jab their competition over this apparent shortcoming; when asked whether the CTS-V will get a track package with enhanced suspension, pricier braking setups, and more power, they responded by saying, “the 2016 CTS-V is the track package.”) The V’s Brembo-supplied iron discs are said to be able to dissipate more heat at their 15.4-inch front and 14.4-inch rear diameters than could similarly sized carbon-ceramic pieces.

Now that's interesting. I also read something about chatter and squeal as another reason to select conventional brakes. I say conventional in a relative context.

Unfortunately, all of the chassis Viagra results in the CTS-V being slightly heavier than lesser CTS models. Cadillac claims the curb weight is 4145 pounds, or 179 pounds heartier than the last 2014 CTS Vsport twin-turbo model we tested. Still, the CTS-V is a lightweight compared with the M5 (4300–4398 pounds in our testing) and the E63 AMG (a wagon we tested punched the scales with 4733 pounds of force).

As was mentioned above, even at over 2-tons this is still a lightweight in class. 179 lb weight gain over a Vsport isn't really that upsetting. I mean for another $20k they probably could have done it with no weight gain (my assumption) but is that worth it?

As such, Cadillac says it isn’t worried about the V’s additional pork, and no effort was made to sacrifice any creature comforts on the performance altar. Every CTS-V comes with 20-way power leather front sport seats with heating and ventilation elements, navigation, Bose audio, OnStar with 4G LTE data connectivity, a reconfigurable full-color head-up display, and a new 12.3-inch high-definition LCD digital gauge cluster that will spread to the full CTS lineup for 2016.

The only major options are Recaro sport seats, a panoramic sunroof, and the Corvette’s awesome Performance Data Recorder. A Carbon Fiber package brings a bare carbon finish to the hood vent and a deeper splitter and taller rear spoiler, and Cadillac even book-matches the material’s weave down the pieces’ centerline. There will be safety items like forward-collision warning, lane-keeping assist, blind-spot monitoring, rear cross-traffic alert, and an automatic parking feature, but the only nanny we’re remotely interested in is a new front-facing bumper camera that prevents parking-curb scraping events. Pricing is expected to come in at around $85K, which will save you five figures or so versus the German rivals.

Believe it or not, $85k for this performance and loaded up as they are, is pretty cheap. Though the question becomes, is this car going to get sales by being $10k+ cheaper than the German competition? I think it has to command that money by literally being the better, more attractive choice. And you could certainly make a case for that but we'll see what happens.

[kevm14]

The matte white is awesome.









Oh my, I do believe I have the vapors.

[kevm14]

Someone apparently did the math out on the trans, final drive and tire sizes. Pretty optimized gearing.

The gearing is super aggressive with the 2.85 ring/pinion. 3rd gear is needed for 60mph. 4th takes you to 100mph. 7th at the 6600 limiter is 205mph. 8th should do 200mph@4925rpm. (est. 575hp there) I doubt many owners will rev it out past 5th to 6th gear upshift~135mph. The really adventurous ones will top out 6th, ~172mph (and should only take one mile from rest)

Simply cruise at 200mph in 8th at a modest 4900rpm.

[bill25]

This is a great looking car. Performance will likely be excellent also.

Chevy could use this with Chevy Styling for the new SS instead of the Impala chassis, this one is rear drive. That could work.

[kevm14]

M/T article with some good photos of mechanical details: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sed ... irst_look/

[kevm14]

Ahh, good details in here.

Suspension changes largely mirror those of the ATS-V, with less extreme increases in spring and anti-roll bar rates. (Spring rates increase 11 percent front and rear, and bars increase from 25 to 27mm in front, 23 to 26mm in the rear.) Chief engineer Dave Leone says the ride quality is considerably more refined than the ATS-V's and might even feel plusher than the CTS Vsport's thanks to the Gen III Magnetic Ride Control tuning. (It features a dual coil system that doubles the magnetic force acting on the metal particles and broadens the range of damping rates, and increased processing power permits 40-percent faster damping response.)

Rides better than the Vsport.

[kevm14]

Still there is no substitute for 500 cubic inches wafting along at 100 mph on cruise control, steering with a pinkie through the Nevada desert in 1983. Too bad the turbo 400 tranny did not like it. But I would not say no if someone gave me a CTS-V. Really! someone please give me one.

I must know more. Go on...