Image of Cadillac CTS-V Coupe

Cadillac CTS-V Coupe specs

Car type Coupe
Curb weight 1907 kg (4204 lbs)
Dimensions 4.79 m (189 in) long, 1.88 m (74 in) wide, 1.42 m (56 in) high
Wheelbase 2.88 m (113 in)
Power / weight 296 ps (292 bhp) / t
Torque / weight 392 Nm (289 lb-ft) / t
Introduced 2011
Origin country United States
Views 23.8k

Performance

Top speed 308 kph (191 mph)
0 - 50 kph 2.0 s
0 - 100 kph 4.4 s
0 - 130 kph 6.6 s
0 - 200 kph 13.5 s
0 - 300 kph 57.3 s
0 - 60 mph 3.9 s
0 - 100 mph 8.9 s
0 - 150 mph 22.5 s
Est. 1/8 mile 8.3 s @ 95.7 mph
1/4 mile 12.2 s @ 118.1 mph
Est. 1/2 mile 19.7 s @ 142.3 mph
Est. 1 mile 32.8 s @ 163.4 mph
Est. 1000 m 23.1 s @ 241.0 kph
Est. 100 - 200 kph 9.1 s
Est. 200 - 300 kph 43.8 s
Est. max acceleration 0.67 g (7 m/s²)

More acceleration times

Cadillac CTS-V Coupe acceleration graph
User avatar

User avatar

Fangio Man  7y ago

@lafars
Yes, my mistake.


User avatar

lafars  7y ago

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



User avatar

Elise racer  7y ago

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


User avatar

NIN  7y ago

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

You can't be that gullible.


User avatar

Elise racer  7y ago

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


User avatar

Elise racer  7y ago

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


User avatar

NIN  7y ago

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.


User avatar

Elise racer  7y ago

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!


User avatar

Elise racer  7y ago

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


User avatar

Elise racer  7y ago

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).


User avatar

Elise racer  7y ago

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


User avatar

Elise racer  7y ago

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


User avatar

DDriver  8y ago

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.


User avatar

Apathy  8y ago

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...


User avatar

Tension  8y ago

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


User avatar

Mike B  8y ago

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


User avatar

DeDe  8y ago

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.


User avatar

Mike B  8y ago

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.


User avatar

Viking  8y ago

@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.


User avatar

mena3agram  8y ago

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


User avatar

irmisb   9y ago

weight 1924 kg / 4237 lbs


User avatar

vette  9y ago

@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


User avatar

Sims  10y ago

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


User avatar

FastestLaps  10y ago

Q-mile according to InsideLine

 


User avatar

E  10y ago

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.


User avatar

E  10y ago

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.


User avatar

Anonymous.  10y ago

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..


User avatar

E  10y ago

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


User avatar

YoungSinatra  10y ago

No the CTS-V is not up to the standards of a Mercedes-Benz A.M.G. BUT IT\'S ABOUT HALF THE PRICE!! It\'s a tremendous amount of bang for the buck. It\'s going for around 65k. American dollars. And the quality of the Cadillac is VERY good today. You must take price into consideration and compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.