Article about CTS-V and its importance to GM

[BMWDave]

Link

TELEVISION tells us what housewives do when they are desperate, or at least what happens when the spouses of Wisteria Lane feel neglected. Car companies that find themselves in a similar fix - hungry for attention and unable to arouse interest on the home front - are obliged to take a different approach.

Increasingly, automakers are tarting up standard models with upgrades to their style or performance - or both. Spurred by the success of special high-performance models from German companies - cars like the BMW M3 and various AMG-label cars from Mercedes-Benz - automakers from Detroit, Japan and Britain are setting up their own in-house "tuner" operations to turn out limited-edition, premium-price cars with performance enhancements.

But few of these imitators are counting as heavily on tuner models as the Cadillac division of General Motors. While Cadillac's recovery from its product coma of the 1990's has been built on a total overhaul of its lineup, the task of changing public perceptions of the brand - particularly its ability to compete with Europeans in the market for high-performance luxury cars - began in earnest with the CTS-V.

A special edition of the midsize CTS sedan, this car was re-engineered by the company's Performance division, the in-house tuner division that develops alternatives to the autobahn alphas from BMW's M group and the Mercedes-Benz AMG operation.

The CTS-V, introduced in late 2003, has been heavily promoted in advertising - far out of proportion to its sales volume - and with a factory-supported effort in Sports Car Club of America racing. Reviews of the CTS-V made favorable comparisons with more expensive supersedans like the BMW M5 and Mercedes E55 AMG.

For its performance to be mentioned in the same breath with such cars is flattering enough, but the CTS-V's $50,185 base price also looks like a steal against the $81,520 E55 or the $71,095 M5 (last sold as a 2003 model). Of course, the CTS-V's comparable numbers on the test track don't tell the whole story, as both the BMW and the Mercedes are lavishly equipped and more refined.

Looking in the other direction - down to lesser versions of the CTS - is a different story. The base version, with a 210-horsepower 2.8-liter V-6, starts at $31,390; a model with a 255-horsepower 3.6-liter V-6 is $33,640. For their extra thousands, CTS-V buyers get a 400-horsepower V-8, giant Brembo disc brakes, a thoroughly upgraded suspension and cosmetic nips and tucks.

So more than a year since this hot-rod Cadillac arrived, one question hangs heavily: Has the CTS-V moved the needle? Has it prompted Americans - the car is not sold in Europe - to abandon their old overstuffed stereotypes of Cadillac?

G.M. says they have. Speaking in New York in January, Mark Reuss, executive director of the G.M. Performance division, said that 38 percent of CTS-V buyers had previously owned German cars and that 40 percent said they would change nothing about their Cadillacs.

The car has certainly changed my view of a brand I thought best suited to retirees and hearses. In driving the CTS-V for several extended periods over the course of a year, I found the car to be as impressive, and as enjoyable, as it was on our first meeting. The affair has been more durable than the weekly flings on Wisteria Lane.

It doesn't hurt that Cadillac dressed up the standard CTS - a crisply handsome shape rendered in the company's sharply creased design language - with understated jewelry in the form of a wire mesh grille, spidery 18-inch alloy wheels and tasteful V-Series badges on the trunk and fenders. Departing from the usual trimmings of cars in the $50,000 class, the CTS-V has no wood inside, instead taking a plastic-intensive high-tech look that echoes an exterior with as many facets as a gemstone.

To no small extent, the rambunctious V-8 accounts for the appeal. The engine is not an offspring of Cadillac's sophisticated Northstar family, but a derivative of the engine used in last year's Corvette Z06. It has old-fashioned pushrods instead of overhead camshafts, and just two valves per cylinder instead of the four valves common today.

While the 5.7-liter V-8 might not seem technically brilliant, it is the perfect complement to the personality of this well-dressed ruffian. In the heyday of Detroit muscle, I was among those freshly licensed know-it-alls who insisted that almost any car could be improved with a Chevy engine under the hood. In this case, we were right.

The CTS-V comes only with a manual transmission. G.M. said that it wanted to produce a true enthusiast's car and that the six-speed gearbox (similar to the Corvette's) was the only way to do that. Never mind that competitors like the BMW M3, with its clutchless Sequential Manual Gearbox, and the Audi S4, with a six-speed automatic, offer automatic-shift options. (The Mercedes AMG's have automatics only.)

While I am susceptible to being corrupted by horsepower, there is more to this car's appeal than its ability to reach 60 m.p.h. in 5 seconds. The drivetrain merits praise for being free of lurches and gear rattle.

Built on G.M.'s rear-drive Sigma architecture and developed at the revered N?rburgring racetrack in Germany, the CTS-V displays remarkable poise on the road, combining a tenacious grip of the asphalt with a buckled-down ride that is firm but rarely harsh. Even the high-performance Goodyear Eagle F1 tires are well behaved, never raising their voice above a whisper.

Cadillac engineers also did an excellent job of relaying the car's sporting intentions: when I went looking for the switch to turn off the traction control (I wanted to allow a little wheelspin, purely in the interest of research) it was right at my fingertip, on the steering wheel. Toggling through its settings offers four choices of traction control and stability control activation, including - it says so right on the G.P.S. screen - a "competitive" mode, which backs down the level of intervention imposed by the system, in case you race your Cadillac on weekends.

Another none-too-subtle clue is the G-meter on the instrument panel, which reads lateral acceleration in turns (expressed as a fraction of the force of gravity). When I returned the car, it displayed 1.0 - a reading that would be no big deal on a banked racetrack, but is a more significant achievement on a highway off-ramp in New Jersey.

Still, at least one sport sedan attribute is missing. I would prefer a hand-operated parking brake, especially in a standard shift car, in lieu of the foot-activated brake.

The CTS-V delivers unusually well on one quality that separates good cars from memorable ones: feedback. How well a car communicates with the driver, especially when pressed hard, is a critical factor in a performance machine. The Cadillac tells all: a firm brake pedal let me know when I had reached the limit beyond which the antilock control would step in.

The steering is particularly fine-tuned, especially for a luxury car, and is the best execution yet of G.M.'s Magnasteer technology, which provides variable effort at the wheel. The gearshift action is not the world's best, but it is quite good, and the clutch pedal (like so much else in this well-tuned car) balances a high level of feel with admirable isolation from vibration and harshness. That one word - balance - sums up the CTS-V well, something that other V-8 powered performance cars (the Audi S4 comes to mind) sometimes lack.

Among my disappointments was learning that the 2005 model has become a gas guzzler, adding a $1,300 tax to the sticker. The revised mileage rating does not result from any mechanical changes, but stems from a recalculation forced by federal fuel-economy rules. The 2004 mileage took into consideration the use of the same LS6 engine in the Corvette, a much lighter car; because there is no Z06 Corvette this year, the consumption of the 3,850-pound CTS-V was not averaged upward. Its rating, 15 m.p.g. in town, 23 on the highway (down from 16/25 in 2004) must now stand alone.

After driving the car off and on over a year, one question remains: Is the CTS-V really a Cadillac? Some details say no: the interior plastic, much of it embossed with the pattern of a plastic foam coffee cup, does not belong in this class, and the firm seats, which fit me to a T, are not the sofas normally sampled in a Cadillac showroom.

It would be particularly easy to make the case that a pushrod V-8 of Chevrolet parentage, despite its deliciously throaty roar under acceleration, has no business in any Caddy, even a sporty one. But a recent drive in an XLR convinced me that Cadillac's Northstar V-8 would have been a bad match for the CTS-V's slightly bad-boy attitude; while the more modern Northstar can be made powerful enough (a supercharged 440-horsepower version will power the coming STS-V and XLR-V), its polite manners and polished behavior would make the CTS-V feel more civilized - and less fun.

So the answer, then, is no, the CTS-V is not a Cadillac in the traditional sense. To that I say, thank goodness.

INSIDE TRACK: A low-maintenance alternative to a trophy spouse.

[Raza]

I still don't get why the CTS-V didn't catch on?  Styling?  Image?  It certainly wasn't value for dollar, because it certainly is a great deal.

[BMWDave]

Wow, this is an old thread :P  

I would assume image played a major role.

[ifcar]

Who says it didn't catch on?

[Raza]

Who says it didn't catch on?

They sold about 4 of them.

[ifcar]

Any real sales data? I've personally seen 5-6 on the road, I haven't seen that many S4s.

[JYODER240]

I really like these cars, I am going to consider getting one next summer, but I also really like the S4's.

[Raghavan]

i love this car.

[Colonel Cadillac]

I'v seen plenty of them! Although many more S4's and M3's, but Audi is very popular around here because of the snow. I am pretty sure they caught on well enough.  

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I ran into a guy about a month ago(outside my local beer and wine shop). Actually i just saw the car as i parked(a black V), as i got out i looked at the front, saw that the window was open and decided to take a closer look. Right as i walked over and looked inside i noticed a older gentleman(maybe late 40's early 50's) walking pretty much directly toword the car, i assumed it was his. I stepped back and as he approached asked if it was his, he said yes.

So i complimented him on such a nice purchase and we BSed back and forth a bit. I asked if he got it in town at the local GM dealer, he did. Then he mentioned to me that if i ever wanted a really good deal on a car to goto a caddy dealer looking for a stick. I didn't ask specifics but i gather(he did mention that it was sitting there for 5-6months) he got a really good deal on it(probobly a couple K of the sticker, mid 40's or so).

Thats probobly the biggest problem with this car, i hate to generalize. But GM/Cadillac buyers are probobly the smallest manual transmission buying group and i can only imagine that on a car such as the V, its a big downside.

I'm sure dozens, maybe a hundred people were interested in that V sitting on caddies lot, but no one wanted a stick(to me(and the guy i talked to) that was just stupid, i told him i wouldn't buy it if it had a auto, and he nodded in agreement).  

[bobwill]

Seems to me that the CTS-V had to have been somewhat successful, otherwise they wouldn't be producing other V series cars.

[BMWDave]

Seems to me that the CTS-V had to have been somewhat successful, otherwise they wouldn't be producing other V series cars.

The car didnt necessarily have to be a sales hit to induce Cadillac to make other V Series models.  

Even if the car wasnt a hit sales wise, it projects a good image for Cadillac that they are willing to play in the upper echelons of the hardcore sports sedan market.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Yup, image is the main benefit of offering such cars, most auto makers realize how important image is and even if it means offering low volume low profit models its worth 20X the initial loss in the end result, image.

I hope others catch on soon(looks at infiniti its non existant manual M45), its not about making a crap load of money, its about showing your intentions when it comes to product dedication.

I'm not anti GM, but i admit GM makes(made, its getting better) very few products that interest me, since my main concerns are getting a manual and overall performance oriented. However making cars like the CTS-V(moreso than a vette) manual only(thereby basically teling the auto guys to pi** off) shows me that they aren't afraid to sacrifice the their past image to die hard caddie fans in favor of appealing to who they want.  

[Raghavan]

why is the V only manual when even the vette, a true sports car, has an auto option?

[ifcar]

Because the Vette is a volume car.  

[Raghavan]

Because the Vette is a volume car.

and Caddy could've made the V a volume car with an auto.

[ifcar]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

[Raghavan]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

Volume car as in a lot more than what they're selling now. I've never seen a CTS-V in my life.
Of course, i know that if a V ever goes by me, i'll know it's driver is a REAL driver.  

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I can see caddies reasoning for going manual only on the CTS-V, its really fits more with who the car appeals to, and maybe they wanted to aviod offering a 4 speed auto on a caddy(nothing wrong with it, other than a possible hit to the image of caddies turn around). Not to mention they have the smoother slightly larger STS-V sporting a supercharged northstar and a 6 speed auto(i believe its a 6). I'm sure the SC northstar and the smooth 6 speed are a better fit for a AMG type competitor than the CTS-V would have been with its 4 speed auto(even if for nothing more than spec sheet comparo's). Keeping the CTS-V slightly rougher around the edges and more of a dedicated machine compared to the STS-V is probobly the best move they could have made at the time.  

[JYODER240]

I think the move of offering the CTS-V with only a 6-speed was done  more for image than sales volumne. They were trying to get away from their soft image of the past. There are also other things in the car that suggest this such as a lateral-g meter in the gauge cluster. And the traction/stability control defeat on the steering wheel.

[ifcar]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

Volume car as in a lot more than what they're selling now. I've never seen a CTS-V in my life.
Of course, i know that if a V ever goes by me, i'll know it's driver is a REAL driver.

I've seen plenty. And the point of a low-volume car is not to try to increase its sales volume, unless it's really struggling, which it isn't.  

[Raza]

Because the Vette is a volume car.

and Caddy could've made the V a volume car with an auto.

I don't think they had the proper automatic to pair to the LS6 at the time.

[Raghavan]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

Volume car as in a lot more than what they're selling now. I've never seen a CTS-V in my life.
Of course, i know that if a V ever goes by me, i'll know it's driver is a REAL driver.

I've seen plenty. And the point of a low-volume car is not to try to increase its sales volume, unless it's really struggling, which it isn't.

Oh, i've never seen one, so i assumed it was struggling.

[Raza]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

Volume car as in a lot more than what they're selling now. I've never seen a CTS-V in my life.
Of course, i know that if a V ever goes by me, i'll know it's driver is a REAL driver.

I've seen plenty. And the point of a low-volume car is not to try to increase its sales volume, unless it's really struggling, which it isn't.

Oh, i've never seen one, so i assumed it was struggling.

When Americans make a great car, it goes largely unnoticed and mostly forgotten by the media.  

[Raghavan]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

Volume car as in a lot more than what they're selling now. I've never seen a CTS-V in my life.
Of course, i know that if a V ever goes by me, i'll know it's driver is a REAL driver.

I've seen plenty. And the point of a low-volume car is not to try to increase its sales volume, unless it's really struggling, which it isn't.

Oh, i've never seen one, so i assumed it was struggling.

When Americans make a great car, it goes largely unnoticed and mostly forgotten by the media.

i wouldn't forget if i saw a V.

[Raza]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

Volume car as in a lot more than what they're selling now. I've never seen a CTS-V in my life.
Of course, i know that if a V ever goes by me, i'll know it's driver is a REAL driver.

I've seen plenty. And the point of a low-volume car is not to try to increase its sales volume, unless it's really struggling, which it isn't.

Oh, i've never seen one, so i assumed it was struggling.

When Americans make a great car, it goes largely unnoticed and mostly forgotten by the media.

i wouldn't forget if i saw a V.

I said "by the media".

[Raghavan]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

Volume car as in a lot more than what they're selling now. I've never seen a CTS-V in my life.
Of course, i know that if a V ever goes by me, i'll know it's driver is a REAL driver.

I've seen plenty. And the point of a low-volume car is not to try to increase its sales volume, unless it's really struggling, which it isn't.

Oh, i've never seen one, so i assumed it was struggling.

When Americans make a great car, it goes largely unnoticed and mostly forgotten by the media.

i wouldn't forget if i saw a V.

I said "by the media".

i see. doesn't have anything to do with me not seeing one though.

[Raza]

It's not supposed to be a volume car.

Volume car as in a lot more than what they're selling now. I've never seen a CTS-V in my life.
Of course, i know that if a V ever goes by me, i'll know it's driver is a REAL driver.

I've seen plenty. And the point of a low-volume car is not to try to increase its sales volume, unless it's really struggling, which it isn't.

Oh, i've never seen one, so i assumed it was struggling.

When Americans make a great car, it goes largely unnoticed and mostly forgotten by the media.

i wouldn't forget if i saw a V.

I said "by the media".

i see. doesn't have anything to do with me not seeing one though.

Nope.  It does have something to do with the fact that you can't go a page in a magazine without seeing "M3" and "CTS-V" wasn't mentioned after a few months from its introduction.

[ifcar]

I don't see the M3 mentioned all that often. That'll change when the new one comes out, but I haven't noticed its presence any more than the CTS-V's.

You're just reading the wrong magazines.

[Raza]

I don't see the M3 mentioned all that often. That'll change when the new one comes out, but I haven't noticed its presence any more than the CTS-V's.

You're just reading the wrong magazines.

I see the M3 mentioned a lot as a competitor to cars, but never the CTS-V mentioned as one.