2016 Cadillac CTS-V

[Shadowless]

I'll take 2 please.

6.2L Supercharged LT4 putting down 640HP

If there were any doubts that Cadillac should be counted among the most elite high-performance luxury car brands, the new 2016 CTS-V should put them to rest.

The third-generation CTS-V, which debuts at Detroit’s North American International Auto Show in January, is the most powerful sedan in Cadillac history, launching from zero to 60 mph in 3.7 thrilling seconds and joining a small club of high-performance cars that can hit 200 miles per hour or better.

Aimed squarely at the BMW M5 and Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG, it packs the same supercharged 6.2-liter V8 found in General Motors’ Chevrolet Corvette Z06, producing up to 640 horsepower and 630 foot-pounds of torque.

General Motors hopes cars like the CTS-V and the 2016 ATS-V unveiled in November will rejuvenate the sagging Cadillac brand, which saw a sales decline in 2014 despite producing some of the best cars in its 112-year history. New President Johann de Nysschen, who formerly led both Audi and Infiniti, thinks moving Cadillac headquarters to New York will help reestablish Cadillac as a legitimate global luxury brand. New products, of course, matter most, and Cadillac will debut its new CT6 flagship sedan in the spring at the New York International Auto Show. A new SRX crossover is also coming, along with several other new models.


The high-performance CTS-V Series currently represents only about 8 percent of overall CTS sales, but it is a halo car that helps draw younger, more affluent buyers into the luxury brand. CTS-V buyers, for example, are about seven years younger than the average CTS owner, who is 59.

“These are the most enthusiastic ambassadors for our products,” said Tony Roma, chief engineer for the CTS and V Series lineup. “These are the customers that everybody covets. They’re more educated. They have higher incomes. They’re a little younger. They’re influencers. They’re people other folks ask their opinion about cars.”

The CTS-V, he says, is really two cars in one: a daily luxury car and a track-capable performance car. It’s even available with a performance data recorder, which allows drivers to record high-definition video, with data overlays of their driving performance to impress their friends on social media.

Everything about the car’s design, from its bulging carbon fiber hood to its flared fenders and massive grille, was intended to improve aerodynamic performance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmul...40-horsepower/

[_TiTaNiuM]

Would rather have an E63 AMG Wagon.

Cadillac still has a long way to go to really be worth their price tags. Maybe next generation they'll catch up with the germans though I am not really sure.

[Shadowless]

Originally Posted by _TiTaNiuM

Would rather have an E63 AMG Wagon.

Cadillac still has a long way to go to really be worth their price tags. Maybe next generation they'll catch up with the germans though I am not really sure.

What are you talking about?

[curio]

Looks beautiful - and more POWAH

[_TiTaNiuM]

Originally Posted by Shadowless

What are you talking about?

build quality and materials are still a far point off the mark yet they demand prices equal or greater than that of their european contemporaries.

BMW sold nearly 4 times as much product as Cadillac did in the US, take from that what you will.

[metroidfox]

Nice! Mileage on the old one was starting to fail relative to the competition's. I wonder how that's changed. Hopefully it has.

[Shadowless]

Originally Posted by _TiTaNiuM

build quality and materials are still a far point off the mark yet they demand prices equal or greater than that of their european contemporaries.

BMW sold nearly 4 times as much product as Cadillac did in the US, take from that what you will.

They are not that far off material wise. I've driven plenty of BMWs and their materials aren't exactly blowing me away. If you want to say MB is way ahead materials wise, I'll accept that (except for the CLA which feels cheap).

BMWs are status symbols, so saying they sold 4x the amount as Cadillac really means nothing when you ask someone why they leased (no one buys BMWs) a BMW and the answer boils down to "because it's a BMW". Also, of all that product, how many were 3-series that someone picked up on a lease special...

[Shadowless]

Originally Posted by metroidfox

Nice! Mileage on the old one was starting to fail relative to the competition's. I wonder how that's changed. Hopefully it has.

huh? Are you talking about reliability?

[Elysian]

Front end looks like a Nissan...

[_TiTaNiuM]

Originally Posted by Shadowless

They are not that far off material wise. I've driven plenty of BMWs and their materials aren't exactly blowing me away. If you want to say MB is way ahead materials wise, I'll accept that (except for the CLA which feels cheap).

BMWs are status symbols, so saying they sold 4x the amount as Cadillac really means nothing when you ask someone why they leased (no one buys BMWs) a BMW and the answer boils down to "because it's a BMW". Also, of all that product, how many were 3-series that someone picked up on a lease special...

Cadillac has a big image problem, BMW doesn't. Beyond materials there's an issue with buying a luxury car from the Chevy dealer, which is where many Cadillac sales points are, the same guy selling Cruzes is the one who wants to put you in an $80,000 truck, with DISCOUNTS DISCOUNTS DISCOUNTS! BIG REBATES AND SAVINGS!

Probably why Buick is doing better than Cadillac, it's upmarket but it still fits in with general GM product because it doesn't pretend to be an ultimate luxury product sold alongside a silverado.

How many CTS's do you think are on the road because of some lease special? The Ally auctions were flooded with CTS's. I'd say they make up probably a very similar percentage of the overall sales that BMW or MB has.

I promise you, GM execs dream of the day Cadillac had that same image (again). They once were that product so to say that's a negative is silly, when that was their main selling point for, oh, the past 50 years.

[OverclockN']

No like, and really disappointed. The styling is bloody boring. I'm starting to nod off at my desk just looking at it.

[Shadowless]

Originally Posted by Elysian

Front end looks like a Nissan...

I loathe the new logo. I liked the old one A LOT better.

I won't judge the overall look till I see one in person.

Originally Posted by _TiTaNiuM

Cadillac has a big image problem, BMW doesn't. Beyond materials there's an issue with buying a luxury car from the Chevy dealer, which is where many Cadillac sales points are, the same guy selling Cruzes is the one who wants to put you in an $80,000 truck, with DISCOUNTS DISCOUNTS DISCOUNTS! BIG REBATES AND SAVINGS!

Probably why Buick is doing better than Cadillac, it's upmarket but it still fits in with general GM product because it doesn't pretend to be an ultimate luxury product sold alongside a silverado.

How many CTS's do you think are on the road because of some lease special? The Ally auctions were flooded with CTS's. I'd say they make up probably a very similar percentage of the overall sales that BMW or MB has.

I promise you, GM execs dream of the day Cadillac had that same image (again). They once were that product so to say that's a negative is silly, when that was their main selling point for, oh, the past 50 years.

I don't disagree Cadillac has an image problem, because they do. But they are trying to do a better job segregating themselves. Around here there's only two or three Cadillac dealers that are lumped into Chevy dealers, and those are actually 2 of the biggest sellers of Cadillacs on Long Island (My dad gets his Cadillacs from one of these dealers).

As far as off-lease CTS's, i'm sure there's less of them than 3-series, only because GM's lease offerings for Cadillac are ****ing terrible compared to BMW and MB. $329/mo w/ $2200 due at signing for a base RWD ATS with 30K mileage allotment for 3yrs is TERRIBLE. You can get a 328i xDrive Sport Line for $349/mo for 39mos with $3500 due at signing. That's a WAY better deal.

[metroidfox]

Originally Posted by Shadowless

huh? Are you talking about reliability?

Wait a minute, I was apparently mistaken. I swear I remember reading elsewhere that the BMW M5 got significantly better fuel economy than the CTS-V. I was apparently mistaken (fueleconomy.gov seems to disagree).

EDIT: I realise that you would never buy one of these cars for 'economy', but still.

[Shadowless]

Originally Posted by metroidfox

Wait a minute, I was apparently mistaken. I swear I remember reading elsewhere that the BMW M5 got significantly better fuel economy than the CTS-V. I was apparently mistaken (fueleconomy.gov seems to disagree).

EDIT: I realise that you would never buy one of these cars for 'economy', but still.

I've heard real world numbers for the 2nd gen CTS-V were horrendous

[KAC]

My God. What a piece of shite.

[Sasquach]

something about that rear end bothers me...it looks so slapped together and amateurish.

all the other cars in the class have rear ends don't convey that same image to me....

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by Sasquach

something about that rear end bothers me...it looks so slapped together and amateurish.

all the other cars in the class have rear ends don't convey that same image to me....

It's not pretty but it's not bad.







http://www.autoblog.com/2014/12/22/2...oit-auto-show/

[Sasquach]

Originally Posted by Sazar

It's not pretty but it's not bad.







http://www.autoblog.com/2014/12/22/2...oit-auto-show/

You know, I think its that white one with the carbon fibre or blackish spoiler that look amateurish to me. The rest in the darker colors look better.

[Shadowless]

Originally Posted by Sasquach

You know, I think its that white one with the carbon fibre or blackish spoiler that look amateurish to me. The rest in the darker colors look better.

That carbon fibre wing on the white one is optional. They used to have that same style wing (not carbon fibre) as an option on the STS-V, and it looked out of place on that, too.

[Silent-Runner]

Don't like the look of it at all, but at least kinda impressive numbers on hp and torque

[swingline]

Originally Posted by Sazar

It's not pretty but it's not bad.

Hard for anything to look good sitting next to a P-51.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by swingline

Hard for anything to look good sitting next to a P-51.