# Cts-v.....cts-v!



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

My god...they actually BUILT it. It's actually going to be FOR SALE. Just read the First Drive in the newest Road & Track. Some specs:

3833 lbs (264 lb more than regular CTS)

LS6 engine (accounts for 60 lbs of that extra weight)
Tremec T56 6-speed (C5 variant)
4-pot Brembos with 14" rotors in front
245/45ZR-18 Eagle F1 Supercars
Thicker gauge subframes
Revalved shocks
Bigger swaybars
Stiffer springs
Shock tower brace
50/50 weight distribution
Claimed 0-60 of 4.7 seconds
Subtle cosmetic changes

Any wanna give me a mid-to-high-forties check? They should be in showrooms around November/December.


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

Jetfire said:


> My god...they actually BUILT it. It's actually going to be FOR SALE. Just read the First Drive in the newest Road & Track. Some specs:
> 
> 3833 lbs (264 lb more than regular CTS)
> 
> ...


I thought it was going to start inthe 50s. Should be priced to sell with the GM family discount!


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Hmm... I will HAVE to drive one.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> Hmm... I will HAVE to drive one.


 I may have to own one.

But I won't.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2003)

Jetfire said:


> My god...they actually BUILT it. It's actually going to be FOR SALE. Just read the First Drive in the newest Road & Track. Some specs:
> 
> 3833 lbs (264 lb more than regular CTS)
> 
> ...


IMO, it sounds like exactly what the E46 M3 should have been:

- 4 door
- V8 power
- Real brakes


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

3833 lbs :dunno:


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2003)

Isn't that just the E46 M3 with a large passenger?


----------



## johnlew (Dec 25, 2001)

Read all about it.

As an aside, in my parking garage, someone has a CTS in all black, the color I think it looks best in. It has a very stealth, like the plane, look. In the row of cars lined up against the wall, BMWs, MBs, Lexus, etc., it stands out in a spooky, subtle way. Just kind of sitting back there lurking, dark and ready to pounce.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

TD said:


> Isn't that just the E46 M3 with a large passenger?


http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34692


----------



## cosmo911 (Apr 16, 2002)

TD said:


> Isn't that just the E46 M3 with a large passenger?


You're an idiot. 500 lbs. is a large passenger?


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2003)

atyclb said:


> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34692


 Oops. I had the M3 convertible's weight on the brain for some reason.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

TD said:


> Oops. I had the M3 convertible's weight on the brain for some reason.


The convertible's a whole mess heavier than the coupe. :eeps:


----------



## e46shift (Oct 12, 2002)

kinda like a poormans m5 :thumbup:


----------



## e46supra (Jan 13, 2003)

6 lugs!

Lets see if they sorted out the suspension.
It would be amazing if they can create a suspension that emulate the Z06 suspension in a sedan.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

Yeah, it's heavy...but hey guys, this is GM's first REAL attempt at a modern supersedan. GTPs and the supercharged Imapalas/Monte Carlos don't count, and nor does the GTO. This thing is gonna rock.

I think the CTS looks best in black as well. It's got some great lines, although I can see why some people would hate them.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

the weight of the upcoming GTO and the CTS-V is disturbing. 

great that they're making the cars, and i hope that they have sufficient braking power and suspensions to handle the power.

(i doubt it).

but they'll be fast in a straight line.

i'm also guessing that their engines won't blow up :angel: .


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

pdz said:


> the weight of the upcoming GTO and the CTS-V is disturbing.
> 
> great that they're making the cars, and i hope that they have sufficient braking power and suspensions to handle the power.
> 
> ...


 Don't you think 14" Brembos would have a pretty good shot at handling the power and weight? :dunno:

Now the suspension is DEFINITELY the big question. According to the reviews, the GTO is very close to the M5 in performance, so it can't have an awful suspension. Hopefully, the CTS-V will do at least as well.


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> Don't you think 14" Brembos would have a pretty good shot at handling the power and weight? :dunno:


Probably, if you put halfway decent pad on it.

btw, E46 M3s actually have pretty good brakes. You put a decent track pad on there, and won't have fade issues at all.

I think this should be a good car. Too heavy though, but good M5 imitator. (probably better than the E39 M5, but not E60)


----------



## GregD (Feb 5, 2003)

The real question is what will the reliability be like. I haven't been too impressed with GM products for a long time.

Also, IMO, it's just plain ugly. : puke:


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

GregD said:


> The real question is what will the reliability be like. I haven't been too impressed with GM products for a long time.
> 
> Also, IMO, it's just plain ugly. : puke:


 Styling is definitely up for debate. For the record, I really like the new Cadillacs a lot. The Escalade/EXT/ESV, CTS, XLR (boioioing), and upcoming SRV all look good to me, and most of them look great. People who hate them are certainly justified, though.

As for reliability, I've actually had no problems with any GM product. My last GM car (bought new) took all of the abuse I gave it and then some. In fact, the vast majority of Grand Prix owners really ran them HARD. Aside from tansmission issues (try pumping well over 300 ft-lbs through a FWD tranny meant for 280 max) the cars stood up admirably. The interior was rather Duplo-like, but that's just a styling problem.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

it will be interesting, won't it? the first time they run a CTS-V against theh competition. i'm guessing in that comparo, it will be the m3 and S4 (size class).

seeing as how the XLR did quite well compared to other high-end roadsters, i'll bet the CTS does just fine.

but it then becomes a question of: 

is this a car we'd all love to drive OR is it a car we'd want to own?


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

nate328Ci said:


> Probably, if you put halfway decent pad on it.
> 
> btw, E46 M3s actually have pretty good brakes. You put a decent track pad on there, and won't have fade issues at all.
> 
> I think this should be a good car. Too heavy though, but good M5 imitator. (probably better than the E39 M5, but not E60)


as far as the brakes go:

4 pots up front is "okay". remember, audis have what? 6pots in front? 4 in the rear?

who knows what this car has in the rear. and who knows how GM's implementation of the brakes will be, even though they use brembo parts.

for example, the brembos on the 993 are 4 piston f/r and they work quite well, but i would think they're helped out by the hydraulics porsche uses, the drilled rotors, and the OEM pad; the STi has brembos, too, but not quite the same, is it?


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

pdz said:


> as far as the brakes go:
> 
> 4 pots up front is "okay". remember, audis have what? 6pots in front? 4 in the rear?
> 
> ...


 Sure beats the single pots my 3600lbs. monster truck has...


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

TD said:


> IMO, it sounds like exactly what the E46 M3 should have been:
> 
> - 4 door
> - V8 power
> - Real brakes


4 doors? I think you'll find the number of people disagreeing with you will be, er, everyone . What makes you think the E46 M3 should have been a four door?

- V8 power: well, that was left to the M5. If you want lazy, nothing-special V8 power, get an S4. They have 4 doors, too. I agree, though, that a small-capacity, high-revving V8 with an aluminium engine would have done no damage to the weight distribution. Whether BMW could have got a steering rack in there (vs the box used for the V8 5s) is debatable, though.

Real brakes? Everyone bar the North American markets got those. Don't blame BMW; blame BMW NA (or the reasons they de-contented the NA-market M3 brakes).

Otherwise, the CTS-V sounds like everything the M3 isn't and shouldn't ever be. A 3,900 lb pig that will only be sold in a handful of markets. Doesn't really cut it.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

andy_thomas said:


> 4 doors? I think you'll find the number of people disagreeing with you will be, er, everyone . What makes you think the E46 M3 should have been a four door?
> 
> - V8 power: well, that was left to the M5. If you want lazy, nothing-special V8 power, get an S4. They have 4 doors, too. I agree, though, that a small-capacity, high-revving V8 with an aluminium engine would have done no damage to the weight distribution. Whether BMW could have got a steering rack in there (vs the box used for the V8 5s) is debatable, though.
> 
> ...


i am neutral on 4 doors. having them or not does not detract from the sportiness of the S4 or the M5. if the M3 had 4 doors, do you think they would lose sales and sales of the 330Ci would suddenly go up? or that the 330i ZHP is "less sporty" than the 330Ci? i think it's strictly preference. and in this "sporty luxury" realm, anything goes.

i know people are making a big point about "squeezing" in an aluminum v8 into the e46m3. but remember, the inline six is a very long engine. i really think having a 3.5 litre v8 in there is not an issue. maybe having a v8 in there would actually make use of the m3's "PowerDome" hood.

i agree that in most cases where brake fade occurs at DE's, this is driver error and usage of teh brakes needs to be readjusted. however, when One Lap M3s crack all four rotors and Instructors driving M3s complain about brake fade, then the 3450 pound curb weight is an issue. and maybe not so much that it is that figure, but that BMW might have thought about upping the capacity and cooling of the brakes to deal with that weight.

i do not think the CTS-V is the answer to the M3 at all, but that is a fundamentally good chassis, so it will be very, very interesting to see how it does.


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

I don't suppose there is any chance for a manual tranny... oh, well...


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2003)

JetBlack330i said:


> I don't suppose there is any chance for a manual tranny... oh, well...


 A 6-spd manual is the only tranny choice. No auto, no manumatic. Just a stick.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

JetBlack330i said:


> I don't suppose there is any chance for a manual tranny... oh, well...


yeah, you wouldn't see all of us crusty old school types in this thread if there wasn't a 6speed available.

otherwise, it'd just be another heavy v8 barge. oh wait! it already is.  . i dunno about the others, but i hope it kicks serious germanic arse when they go head to head.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

Uh, guys, the ONLY transmission option is a 6-speed manual.

I think this car WILL be a competitor to the E46 M3. Yes, it's bigger. It's also heavier. It costs a few thousand less. It also has 50/50 weight balance, a nice, simple, big-ass engine that has TONS of tuning potential with just bolt-ons while also offering very reasonable gas mileage (C5s have NO gas guzzler tax. They get almost 30 mpg on the highway), nice aggressive styling, and the list goes on. It's not as "nice" as the M3, perhaps. And don't wait for it to catch an M3 on the track, because it probably won't. But it's still going to be a damn cool car. And I bet it'll be fun to drive to boot.

Sure it's a GM product, but who the hell cares? Just don't buy one new.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

pdz said:


> yeah, you wouldn't see all of us crusty old school types in this thread if there wasn't a 6speed available.
> 
> otherwise, it'd just be another heavy v8 barge. oh wait! it already is.  . i dunno about the others, but i hope it kicks serious germanic arse when they go head to head.


Let's keep the weight issue in perspective. The CTS is a big car, bigger in nearly every dimension than an E39. In price, the CTS-V is an E46 competitor, but in size and performance, it's an M5 competitor. And it certainly weighs less than an E39 M5 (38XX lbs v. 40XX lbs.)

If it is as good as I think it will be, I will buy one.

CTS:

Wheelbase (in.) 113.4

Track FR (in.) 60.3

Track RR (in.) 60.0

Length (in.) 190.1

Width (in.) 70.6

Height (in.) 56.7

E39:

Wheelbase (in.) 111.4 111.4 111.4 111.4

Track FR (in.) 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.5

Track RR (in.) 60.1 60.1 60.1 59.6

Length (in.) 188.0 188.0 188.0 188.0

Width (in.) 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9

Height (in.) 56.5 56.5 56.5 55.7


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

Hey, you're back! Either that, or you're crazy from the sun and you're posting from Cabo.

Finally, someone else who understands what makes this car so cool. I can't wait to get behind the wheel of one. It would make a fantastic family car.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Jetfire said:


> Hey, you're back! Either that, or you're crazy from the sun and you're posting from Cabo.
> 
> Finally, someone else who understands what makes this car so cool. I can't wait to get behind the wheel of one. It would make a fantastic family car.


Am back; you guys are great, but posting from Cabo would be uch:

Here's why (the view from our deck):


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

There was a page on the Caddy site about this car, but I can't seem to find it.

Does anyone have the link ?


----------



## johnlew (Dec 25, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> There was a page on the Caddy site about this car, but I can't seem to find it.
> 
> Does anyone have the link ?


CTS-V


----------



## Jspeed (Dec 23, 2001)

andy_thomas said:


> 4 doors? I think you'll find the number of people disagreeing with you will be, er, everyone . What makes you think the E46 M3 should have been a four door?


... not as long as I'm alive. 

The E36 M3 sedan was very successful in NA and according to the sales training manual, E46 sedans are stiffer than the coupes.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

johnlew said:


> CTS-V


Thank you ! :thumbup:


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Automobile this month has a review of the CTS-V. Here are some quotes:

"[T]he Fuchsroehre [at the Nuerburgring] is a gentle left-hander that exits steeply uphill. A car goes from full jounce to full rebound in short order here, so the suspension damping has to be outstanding...M cars cope with the Fuchsroehre magnificiently. Audis and Volkswagens fall down in this corner, their damping unable to cope...The new Cadillac CTS V is brilliant here, however, the first American car that can stand up to the world's best sports sedans. It's that good."

After some technical details and a dis of the cheap-seeming interior, the mag continues: "The engine is stunning, with monstrous amounts of torque and a willingness to rev. When you put your foot in, the growl is utterly intoxicating, a noise that could only come from a large capacity American V-8."

"Around the Nuerburgring, the V is heroic. Without trying too hard, we were able to lap in less than nine minutes, just four seconds shy of our best time in the ultimate pre-993 Porsche 911, the RS 3.8. John Heinricy, director of high-performance vehicles for GM's Performance Division, has gone around the circuit in eight minutes nineteen seconds, which is better than the current M3 has managed to do."

In fairness, they conclude "_t isn't as ultimately involving as BMW's M3 or M5." However, "it is easier to live with and has stellar straight-line performance and handling."

Automobile reports a price of 45-47K, 400 hp, 390 lbs ft of torque, 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, a 6 speed manual transmission, a mechanical limited slip differential, and a traction-control system with four modes (including a "competition" mode, similar to that used in the Corvette). Weight is given as 3833 lbs (the smaller M5 is 4024, FWIW).

An American car as good as those built in Europe? One for which no excuses ("it's good, but no stick," or "it's good, for a Lincoln," or "it's good for those who must buy American") are required? An honest to god American aspirational performance sedan?

This thing could be the real deal. Welcome back, Standard of the World.

I think I'll name mine "Corvillac."

EDIT: Here is a list of other Nordschleife lap times. As you can see, 8:19 is very, very impressive. http://www.nordschleife.no/_


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Holy shit!


----------



## johnlew (Dec 25, 2001)

I was going to quote some of the stuff you mentioned JST, this weekend, but I couldn't remember where I'd read it. Glad you found the article.


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Random Thoughts:

I still think it is physically ugly. 

About this Caddy, it is one thing to make the perfect car, it is another to have to fly off the showroom floor. I wouldn't buy a Caddy just like I wouldn't buy a Vette. At 35, I am too young!

BTW, BMW brakes will suck as long as they are single piston - case pretty much closed.


----------



## Thertorch (Mar 10, 2004)

Wallenrod said:


> The problem with rating and all these consumer surveys and jd power and whatever else they have there is that when someone driving a buick has a suspension falling off, squeeks all over the place and weird engine noises, they probably don't think about it at all. They wouldn't buy a buick in the first place if they cared. So as long as it moves them from point A to B, they would probably rate it excellent. Do you think they care what engine oil they put in or whether they should change it more often than suggested manufacturer intervals? Or whether their model has the same control arms as a model with some different package? Are you kidding me...
> Now take people who buy BMWs. Many (not all) probably are interested in these cars, research them a lot and constantly complain about every little bit of imaginary (or real) problem. Enough to check this and other forums.
> 
> So clearly there's a bias and all these surveys are about as useful as a call to a BMW 1-800 number.


Ah, I see. So no one who owns any other car than BMW cares about it? That explains why Ford and Chrysler rank No. 1 and 2 on all the surveys, cause all them people just don't care......

Um, it should be obvious, and I mean OBVIOUS that people understand and report the problems with their vehicles. That's why certain brands rank higher or lower then others in these surveys... ( I can't believe this needs an explanation, the rest of you forgive me please ) .

The big difference, and I mean BIG difference is that certain brands, like BMW, have such great and I mean GREAT advantages, that their owners will complain about the problems but still report that they love their cars.

BTW, Buicks are actually pretty well built, if you believe the surveys, but I digress.

Triumph and MGB made some of the most god awful mechanical contraptions ever to afflict the planet. If you owned one, you drove it during the week and fixed it on the weekend, unless you had to fix it on the side of the road. ( My Spitfire ran home from work one night in the rain with the points closed, true story ) And yet, people loved to own them. Because, a little open two seat roadster has a great deal of appeal to alot of people, even if it's built to Yugoslavian specifications.

Moral of the story, don't confuse brand loyalty/driving satisfaction with build quality.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Plaz said:


> To what E46 problems are you referring that drop them below GM standards?


In roughly their order of appearance throughout the model run:

-Electronic throttle failures
-Issues with front lower control arms and vibration during braking
-Cam and crank position failures
-Thermostat failures
-Auxiliary fan failures
-Fires resulting from above
-Window regulator issues
-Spun bearing problems (S54)

Those are just off the top of my head. I'm not arguing that the E46 is a bad car, but it has certainly not been problem free.


----------



## Thertorch (Mar 10, 2004)

And one last thing about styling, while I'm ranting. 

If you don't like the way a car looks, your not gonna buy it, and no one can make you. That's pretty well understood. Bad looking does not equal poorly made. 

BMW 3 series are certainly easy to look at, in a Minivan luxury sedan sort of way. Safe, not to distinguishable. The look of the Japanese Lux sedans are even more conservative. And if Audis get any more slab sided, they'll retail in the meat isle of Cosco. 
The CTS is the purple haired girl with the body art you meet in a bar. Definately not for everyone. 


First time I saw the new 7 series, I thought it was the new Altima.... 

Z4 is everything a Shelby Cobra would have been if Carroll Shelby had been drunk and working in the dark. 

But those are just opinions :rofl:


----------



## EZ (Feb 27, 2003)

Thertorch said:


> And one last thing about styling, while I'm ranting.
> 
> If you don't like the way a car looks, your not gonna buy it, and no one can make you. That's pretty well understood. Bad looking does not equal poorly made.
> 
> ...


 :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Wallenrod (Nov 25, 2003)

Thertorch said:


> That explains why Ford and Chrysler rank No. 1 and 2 on all the surveys, cause all them people just don't care......


That's probably because all the people who died from the exploding fuel tanks didn't get a chance to complete the survey :rofl:


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

sounds like a hyped up Caddy version of the GTO to me :dunno: GM must be going back to their old tricks


----------



## Thertorch (Mar 10, 2004)

TeamZ4 said:


> sounds like a hyped up Caddy version of the GTO to me :dunno: GM must be going back to their old tricks


Not really. It's brand new body architecture, the Sigma platform. This body was tuned for performance from the get go, the handling was not an afterthought. The modifications to the base CTS are stiffer shocks, springs and bigger stabilizer bars ( tho I'm not 100% sure of that last one), with a brace across the engine bay. Bigger wheels and tires and the car can lap the ring faster then the M3.

The engine is the LS6, ZO6 version making 400hp. Caddy claims it's because it was a better fit then the Northstar, but with the Northstar capped at about 320-330 hp, I believe it was because the LS 6 put them in competition with the M3-M5 type cars.

Overall, a very impressive debut for Cadillac. If they could just get the steering feel of a Beemer, ( and ok, redo the interior ) the car will be classic.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Thertorch said:


> Not really. It's brand new body architecture, the Sigma platform. This body was tuned for performance from the get go, the handling was not an afterthought. The modifications to the base CTS are stiffer shocks, springs and bigger stabilizer bars ( tho I'm not 100% sure of that last one), with a brace across the engine bay. Bigger wheels and tires and the car can lap the ring faster then the M3.
> 
> The engine is the LS6, ZO6 version making 400hp. Caddy claims it's because it was a better fit then the Northstar, but with the Northstar capped at about 320-330 hp, I believe it was because the LS 6 put them in competition with the M3-M5 type cars.
> 
> Overall, a very impressive debut for Cadillac. If they could just get the steering feel of a Beemer, ( and ok, redo the interior ) the car will be classic.


The GTO is a Holden Monaro, which is a stretched and widened version of the (old) Opel Omega, which formed the basis for the Caddy that Zigs (aka the Catera). But the Opel Omega and the Sigma are not related, other than in general concept.

It's the fact that the CTS-V can lap the 'ring faster than either the M3 or M5 that means it must be taken very seriously.


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

andy_thomas said:


> 4 doors? I think you'll find the number of people disagreeing with you will be, er, everyone . What makes you think the E46 M3 should have been a four door?
> 
> - V8 power: well, that was left to the M5. If you want lazy, nothing-special V8 power, get an S4. They have 4 doors, too. I agree, though, that a small-capacity, high-revving V8 with an aluminium engine would have done no damage to the weight distribution. Whether BMW could have got a steering rack in there (vs the box used for the V8 5s) is debatable, though.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## Thertorch (Mar 10, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> 4 doors? I think you'll find the number of people disagreeing with you will be, er, everyone . What makes you think the E46 M3 should have been a four door?
> 
> - V8 power: well, that was left to the M5. If you want lazy, nothing-special V8 power, get an S4. They have 4 doors, too. I agree, though, that a small-capacity, high-revving V8 with an aluminium engine would have done no damage to the weight distribution. Whether BMW could have got a steering rack in there (vs the box used for the V8 5s) is debatable, though.
> 
> ...


3900 lb pig sets lap record at Sebring........... beats old record by a full 3 seconds. Rumor is that M3's are still on the track..... :rofl:


----------



## Thertorch (Mar 10, 2004)

Soooooo......
At Sebring, the CTS V race mod has set a new lap record. This certainly doesnt mean it's gonna win, but it does prove the point that the basic vehicle dynamics were NAILED! 

I realize that because the M3's are just so much better they made them drive around the track in reverse with the parking brake engaged, but I'm still encouraged by Cadillac's showing. :rofl: 

Competition is good. Competition for premium brands is better. Competition when it's being waged and won by your freinds and neighbors, brother's, sister's, aunt's and uncles is best. 

Cadillac.. The standard of the world...... ( Today )


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

Super V! Spy shooters uncover dazzling, 600-hp CTS prototype 


> We're told this beast is the forerunner for the maximum General Motors Performance Division Caddy, the CTS Super V. Available direct from GM for about $65,000, Super V features a 600-hp engine, carbon fiber hood and fenders, and that scoop for getting more cooling air in and around the engine bay.
> 
> Once GM engineers get done running the Nürburgring, they'll get down to the business of building just 500 limited-edition Super Vs.


----------



## Jetfire (Jun 20, 2002)

Uh, $65,000? That seems almost laughably inexpensive, if true.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

Good god is that thing ugly.


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

Jetfire said:


> Uh, $65,000? That seems almost laughably inexpensive, if true.


Talked w/ dealer this week as I was working out delivery of my CTS tomorrow. The rumor is confirmed as a rumor. :thumbup:


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

Plaz said:


> Good god is that thing ugly.


Most beasts are! That thing is beastly! What the hell are people going to do w/ 600hp car who normally couldn't afford one? Baby it or crash it!


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43903&item=2482767966&rd=1

Vehicle Description



> 625 horsepower \ 550 foot pounds of torque!!, built by More Performance who specializes in LS1 Chevrolet engines. This particular engine is a Procharged 383LS6. This includes Lunati crank shaft, rods, JE Pistons, Coated Bearings, LS6 Intake, LS6 Cylinder Heads, Custom Computer Tuning and a upgraded fuel system. This is the first Supercharged CTS-V in the US and is a daily driver. We made 524 rear wheel horsepower(RWHP) on 10PSI of boost. This car maintains factory like driveability, while getting 25 MPG on the highway. With the addition of Headers and Exhaust this car is capable of making 700 horsepower.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

I guess Cadi wants to make a statement. Driving the CTS-V, I didn't feel like it suffered from lack of power, it suffers from too much weight and lack of SMG.


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> I guess Cadi wants to make a statement. Driving the CTS-V, I didn't feel like it suffered from lack of power, it suffers from too much weight and lack of SMG.


Didn't stop them from kicking a$$ at Sebring. :dunno:


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

jw said:


> Didn't stop them from kicking a$$ at Sebring. :dunno:


I didn't have a chance to drive it at Sebring, unfortunately. Are they stripped?


----------

