STS-V caught at N-ring
 

http://speed.supercars.net/boardpics...86536-CSLa.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/boardpics...86536-CSLb.jpg

Thanx, and may I say those stupid tapes on the car are drawing more attention than none

well, being that i know auto designers (loosely) the reasons for dark black, and goofy looking camo is to hide the 'suprise' of the new contours of the body, and shape of the plastic head/tail lamps... also, usually used to make it look somewhat like the older model.
ill take the lighterweight CTS-V plus :)

I can see their next product... The super-Escalade-V series...

They are about to take a good thing and give it the GM-let's-fuck-it-over-to-sell-more-units-while-the-quality-and-original-intent-goes-down-the-crapper-but-who-cars-our-stock-price-went-up treatment...

---oh, and it will get some gold-trim and stickers - and an extra markup.... ...and 22"-blade-spinners for the rappers....

i don't know. maybe GM is going to be the real deal with this from now on. I mean the CTS-V is the real deal. Put a slightly detuned new Z06 engine in this thing and let it go after the new M5. also, what about an XLR-V? put 500 horses in that and you have one HELL of a convertible.

XLR-V would be stupid they can leave the XLR as is or offer another engine but they aren't going to go overboard I'm sure. The Cadillac manager at one of the local stores (I know his daughter) said the only two they are talking about for anytime in the future are the CTS and STS series cars. BTW they ghetto Escalades for owners if they want it from the Dealer also H2s and he hates both trucks.

Yep - you can order a CTS-V "appearance" package for your V6 CTS - complete with thin yellow-stripe tyres and gold badge trim option.... right from the dealer.

As I say - every now and then GM gets a flash of brilliance - then proceed to fuck it up ;)

I know what your saying they have fucked "some" :roll: things up in the past, but they seem to be playing right with this line of cars. hell the STS-V isn't even slated for a couple years down the road.

EDIT: the appearance package would be a huge ego boost to some young dad driving his stock V6 accord outrunning a supposedly CTS-V

i'd love to see an accord outrunning the 255HP RWD CTS-V look alike.

And you will. "Patience is a virtue. " :lol:

Is it me or do the wheels on the spy car look small, for one compared to the size of the car and 2nd to the German counterparts offered up by BMW and Benz? Looks like extensive work went into designing this thing, a Bigger CTS :roll:.

WE RIDE SPINNAS!

If you talk about the CTS-V this is the car of 400BHP. Thus, this is only in your dreams that you can think about a JDM outrunning a CTS-V. :wink:

No hes talking about the V6 Caddy with the CTS Uniform, but not the CTS-V muscles. But the Accord V6 in Sedan form is faster than a CTS in V6 form.

XLR v would not even make sence, GM stated that the reason the 5.7 liter isnt able to fit.... yes, the XLR was the test bed of some of the C6 technologies, but they ended up going for a well powered V8, in a severely over-priced Mercedes poser...
at least it looks good...contrasting to me saying no more 'v' series besides the CTS... cadilac definately needs a 2 door turbocharged 6 to play in the performance numbers of the RS4, and M3 range i think (remember that buick concept with the twin turbo V6 shown this eyar?) hmm... good reason to develop such an engine i think..

to sum up
CTS-V good
STS-V bad
ETS-V (or some 2 door cad -v) good

255HP
3,509 lbs.

240HP
3384lbs

about 125lbs difference and 15HP. one is rwd and one is fwd.

one is rwd : pure pleasure of sporty RWD !
one is fwd : Fuckin torque steer and understeer FWD !

According to the data of Carpoint (MSN Bill Gates shit), the CTS is quicker than Accord V6. In addition, the CTS beat the Accord in all categories.

Cadillac CTS - V6 3.6L (255 hp) 5A + ABS
6.71 sec 0 - 60 Time
15.15 sec 1/4 Mile Time
94.40 mph 1/4 Mile Speed
139 ft Braking 60 - 0

Honda Accord sedan EX - V6 3.0L (240 hp) 5A + ABS
6.84 sec 0 - 60 Time
15.34 sec 1/4 Mile Time
95.70 mph 1/4 Mile Speed
144 ft Braking 60 - 0

I leave you the pleasure to prove me the opposite. :D

Well - considering the CTS is a GM product - it is destined to devalue like a mutha fucka and be frought with issues... ;)

So if I was in the market for a V6 family econobox, the Accord is the obvious winner.

I would not buy a V6 CTS for love or money.

As I say - the only redeeming quality of the CTS-V is the engine... nothing else.

I really don't like those STS's and DTS's and grandpa mobiles too much, and I hope they don't subject poor Europe to them...

Me, this is again simpler, I would not buy the CTS, nor the Accord.

In this category I would take the Infiniti G35 Sedan, 3.5L 260 hp V6, with the 6-speed manual. :wink:

I don't know that chassis is quite well sorted.

Well - yes, the handleling goes hand in hand with the engine tuning - what I am getting at is that GM produces shit by the truck load... and that all around, GM cars general suck - in quality, resale and looks.

There are a few exceptions to this rule... one of which I currently drive, and one I will get in a couple years...

Other than that they are the Wal-Mart of the car world... selling as much shit to as many people as quickly as possible.. :P

from what i got off car stats the Accord is quicker.

I guess it would depend on the driver, conditions etc. alot of my sources say teh CTS.

This is what is has come to?

Bench-racing an Accord against a Caddy.... ;)

i have a 90 sedan deville, :P

so what the hell is this!?! its not even an STS. lol... its still a CTS body, so whats the point of it?

actually that is the new STS they are making all their vehicles look similar now if you haven't noticed and whoever mentioned an ETC-V they haven't made the Eldorado for a year or so now. And RC45 the transmission is a good quality in the CTS-V

I don't remember saying it wasn't - ;) but even the Tremec in my car was subject to GM cost cutting.. they substituted the steel shift forks for cheap aluminium ones...

did you change them out or leave them? you said the only redeaming guality was the engine, so I figured

I have left the aluminium forks in for now... Folks that are very abusive to their tranny's have had to get the steel forks, ala-Viper, installed...

The CTS for 2004 and 2005 has an uprated version of the 3.6L V6 with 255bhp...it is indeed faster than the Honda Accord, though I think that it still looks pretty horrid and the build quality is somewhat lacking. The CTS-V is very nice, but again, it can't stand comparison to BMW in terms of build quality even if it does perform similarly to the E39 M5.

aw man, they are making all their cars look like that... i mean, its nice, but wheres the variety!?!?! I think they should've kept the STS how it was, and just did a RWD convert. then that car wouldve kicked ass. Is the Tremec a very good tranny? Did they use that in the Camaros/F-Birds? because on the Mustang forums, they are always saying how our T5 is far superiour to the Camaro/Bird trannys in reliability, and better gear ratios. However, I know the 6-speed provides excellent mileage, but I dont think they are the same tranny...

The interesting thing is that this topic was opened under the heading "STS-V caught at N-ring"...that's the STS-V not the CTS-V...makes me wonder if the STS is still front wheel drive in "V" trim. I certainly doubt it'll compete with anything larger like the 7 series or E or S-class in any trim, much less AMG tune.

We know it is the STS - the discussion moved to the CTS - please try keep up.. we know it is difficult for you Ford guys to understand more than 3 concepts at once - but jeees man... ;)

O i got the stats from the 03 CTS model, but a Accord Coupe will beat a 04/05 so im only partyly wrong 8) Anyways its becoming rather sad when alot of american domestic sedans can be smoked by a Honda Accord.

Hahaha...sorry about that man...didn't really see where the convo switched :-)

Sorry. atleast our Concepts get made.

Too little - too late... all you had was a couple dozen GT40's in the 60's - the 2000 Cobra R and now the $160,000+ GT... pales in comparison to having the defacto standard American Sports car for 51 years.. :P

No - wait... I almost forgot... you also had the Edsel.. my bad... :P

Hey hey...cool it guys...no need to get testy over this. GM has it's upsides and downsides as does Ford, and if you want to get even more involved, you could say that Chrysler does a better job getting its concepts produced than either Ford or GM.

Don't laugh RC, they are testing a V spec Escalade. I wish I saved the link. I subscribe to a auto manufacture insider newsletter and there are reports of V spec 'Slades driving around with either V-10 or V-12 engines. I think these vehicles are the next gen models.

lol... poor gm. as long as our 6' black rappers buy them, they may almost turn a profit....... naw

Anyone whos company makes a SS version of the Cavalier. Uhum Colbolt SS replacement for cavalier shouldnt talk thine shit.

The standard CTS with the new 3.6 liter V6 is still a quick car. 0-60 in the 6 second range and quarter mile just under 15 seconds. He'll give the accord a good run for the money :lol:

I thought I should change my argument a little...as it turns out, the STS is going to be on a new Rear-drive platform, so all that power WILL be going to the right place after all.