Cadillac CTS-V Coupe specs

The 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe actually overlaps with the BMW 650i and the M6. Handling and acceleration are closer to those of a 650i, while top speed is on par with an M6. The CTS-V is not as effective in delivering full output like the M6 due to a more conventional gearbox, a higher drag area, and even worse, a higher-end torque curve.

The automatic is limited to 175 mph, but I think it can do 200 (some 9 mph faster than the manual due to the closer ratios between gears 5 and 6); 195 headwind and 205 tailwind. The V2 CTS-V (particularly the sedan variant, which was even rumored to reach 198 mph with a 6-speed manual) apparently has better aerodynamics than both of the forthcoming generations that suceeded it, including the V3 CTS-V and the CT5-V Blackwing.

@lafars
Yes, my mistake.

0-300-0: 8.1 seconds
300-0: 65.4 seconds

i think you've gotten the numbers the wrong way, if it did 0-300-0 it in 8.1 seconds it would've broken the record

however it does not equate with the other number: 300-0 in 65 seconds and such a slow breaking would be dangerously long

0-300-0: 8.1 seconds
300-0: 65.4 seconds

Source: http://www.sportauto.de/testbericht/beschleunigungs-und-bremsentest-0-300-0-km-h-2011-serien-sportwagen-beim-highspeed-test-4073763.html

@NIN: And I never used any other name. I was just new to the site.

So typing in numbers out of the blue is the same as real life?

You can't be that gullible.

@NIN: And the "CTS-VR" name can be used by Cadillac, too. Not just Hennessey.

@NIN: Yeah they do! You see a car tested on a simulator like it was tested in real life!

We've explained to you (and all of your other names) that simulations do not count as a source.

BTW, the "CTS-VR" name is used by Hennessey, not GM. It also uses a 7.0L LS7 based V8, not a 6.2L LS9.

The acceleration times were claimed with a 3.42 final drive ratio. With a 3.0 rear axle it can go up to 280.5 mph!

259.75 mph with 3.42 rear axle and 280.5 mph with 3.0 rear axle! :)

It produces 1,500 horsepower at 6,500 rpm and 1,450 lb-ft of torque at 3,500 rpm (with a redline of 7,000 rpm).

Sorry, that was the wrong link! Some glitch converted that to 1200+ hp. Here's an updated link:
http://vimulator.com/#/v5/sim/37940

0-60 mph: 2.4 seconds
0-100 km/h: 3.1 seconds
0-100 mph: 5.4 seconds
0-200 km/h: 6.4 seconds
0-300 km/h: 12 seconds
0-200 mph: 13.4 seconds
0-250 mph: 23.1 seconds
1/4 mile: 9.8 @ 162.2 mph
Top speed: 259.75 mph

Cadillac is going to make 30 Super CTS-VR1500s (20 with manuals and 10 with automatics). They will come equipped with a Twin Turbo LS9 engine!

0-60 mph: 2.4 sec
0-100 mph: 5.5 sec
0-200 mph: 15.8 sec
1/4 mile: 10 @ 156 mph
Top speed: 258.8 mph
Source: http://vimulator.com/#/v5/sim/37937

For me, the rear of the coupe looks ugly. From the side looks nice. Overal wagon looks better.

By the way, haven't notice any significant difference in handling between coupe and wagon on regular roads.

It looks much better in person too.
Never test drove the coupe, but I assume it handles similarly to the Sedan.

Sat in one though. All I remember is that the doors were unusually heavy...

yeah, I actually like this stupid thing.....

Research Y U failed me? insert YUNO meme
I completely forgot about that one.

The actual fastest 0-100kph tested is 4.6 for the manual equipped car

The best for the manual is 4,4 s to 100 kph and 13,5 s to 200 kph, tested by AutoBild Sportscars.

If my research doesn't fail me, the 4.4 to 100kph is made up (as well as the 0-200) and is based on the 3.9 with roll out of the Automatic equipped CTS-V, add 0.3s (I've only seen an account of it only shaving 0.2, so I go for the most common measure) you get 4.2 real 0-60mph then add 0.2 for the 60 to 62 transition and there you have it 4.4s to 100kph.

The actual fastest 0-100kph tested is 4.6 for the manual equipped car, so ~4.1 0-60mph with roll out which results being the fastest gotten on the US for the manual car too.

@mena3agram the acceleration times are probably from two different magazine tests, one U.S. and one European. Usually it takes 2 or 3 tenths of a second more to reach 0-100 kph than 0-60 mph. The 0-60 mph is probably done with 1 foot of roll out which reduces acceleration time by 2 tenths of a second. So, the 5 tenths of a second difference; 0-60 mph versus 0-100 kph isn't unusual. Looks okay to me given the different testing procedure, and that 100 kph is just over 62 mph.

How are the speed times correct?? 0-60mph in 3.9 and 0-100kmh in 4.4??

weight 1924 kg / 4237 lbs

@fastestlaps: there is a new laptime for this on yas marina (abu dhabi GP track)
can you add that track and the time?
2:47.0

the CTS-V coupe looks so good. Cadillac\'s are setting standards for other high end luxury companies to obtain

Q-mile according to InsideLine

I could have sworn that a little while ago, BumRush left a comment here.

Sure some people want cheap cars, I have no problem with manufacturers making them, but when they exclusively make them, and it shows, it becomes annoying. Really, $1,000,000 is kind of silly for a road legal car. Cars don\'t cost that much due to performance, they cost that much due to other factors like artificial costs (this brand must sell things for high prices, etc), low production runs, and all kinds of luxury stuff. Skip those things and you can have $1,000,000 performance for $300,000. Mosler is a good example.

They difference is, the US applies it to everything. Ever the ZR1 and ACR made a big deal about being so cheap. In turn they got 6 speed transmissions with 5 gears, high curb weights, and incomplete aerodynamics (yes even the ACR, drag was excessive because of no undertray venturi).

It would be nice to see one of the US companies make versions of their cars that do away with a price target. It\'s not like they would need to build $1,000,000 cars anyway. For $200,000-$300,000 they could beat 97% of cars out there if they don\'t focus on silly things like exclusivity and ridiculous interiors.

Its not just American cars, its everycar, most people use that term for american cars, becasue the offer the most Bhp per dollar, and its true, but thats not exactly a bad thing, but like they say, you get what you pay for..

Bang for the buck is a disease that American cars get. At least put a gross amount of resources into ONE car.