Cadillac CTS-V (Mk III) specs

In a world where this car exists, an M5 wouldn't even cross my mind.

Most overrated midsize Cadillac V-series generation ever. Sedan only, automatic only, no track package, really felt more like a sportier STS-V/CT6-V than a proper CTS-V of the first two generations or the CT5-V Blackwing.

FastestLaps' 7:42 estimate around Germany's North Loop is very similar to my 7:38 for the Cadillac CTS-V3! Most certainly accurate!

The Series 3 Cadillac CTS-V is faster than the Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat in just about every way. If you didn't opt for the Carbon Fiber appearance package, the CTS-V3's looks would remain subtle as a muscle car.

This car also led Lexus into building the GS F which ONLY had 467 hp, however if it was equipped with the OEM-approved TRD-Magnuson supercharger kit from the Tundra/Sequoia (+8.5 psi = >600 hp), that car would start a total smackdown fight between itself and this car along with the Charger Hellcat as far as sub-US$100,000 super-sedans go.

Because of the better aerodynamics, the CTS-V actually does beat the Hellcat.

2016 Cadillac CTS-V
Claimed Power: 640 hp @ 6300 rpm
Claimed Torque: 630 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
Bore x Stroke: 103.25 mm x 92 mm
Number of Cylinders: 8
Boost Pressure: 0.65 bar
BMEP d: 12.0 bar
VE un-boost: 100.00%
VE boost: 134.57%
MPS @ Peak Power: 18 m/s
Actual Power: 653 hp @ 5870 rpm
Actual Torque: 642 lb-ft @ 3910 rpm
Drivetrain: RWD; 8AT
Estimated Weight: 4052 lb
0-60 MPH: 4.1 sec
0-100 MPH: 7.9 sec
0-150 MPH: 16.1 sec
0-200 MPH: 36.9 sec
1/4-Mile (street): 11.9 sec @ 129 mph
1/4-Mile (drag): 11.2 sec @ 125 mph
Top Speed: 214 mph
Motor Trend Figure-8: 24.4 sec @ 0.97 G
Nürburgring Nordschleife: 7:38
Top Gear Test Track (Power Lap): 1:22

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11T6iUr6uQ_TkqqFB1nPvV0malo9X5HgXlK3JZ2du1RA/edit?usp=sharing

Cadillac CTS-V (2015/MY2016):
Claimed Power: 640 bhp / 649 PS / 477 kW
Actual Power: 653 bhp / 662 PS / 487 kW (based on 0.65bar of boost pressure and mean piston speed of 20m/s)
Estimated Weight: 1913 kg with driver and fuel
Source of Estimations: HPWizard and TorqueStats *with several adjustments
Imperial acceleration figures (for U.S.):
▪ 0-30 mph: 1.430 s
▪ 0-60 mph: 3.100 s
▪ 0-100 mph: 6.900 s
▪ 0-150 mph: 14.958 s
▪ 0-200 mph: 37.677 s
▪ Top speed: 207.246 mph *average of both directions
▪ 1/4 mile: 11.000 s @ 126.185 mph (trap speed at 1254 ft), 128.633 mph (trap speed at 1320 ft), 131.127 mph (trap speed at 1386 ft)
▪ 1 mile: 27.711 s @ 185.643 mph
▪ 1' rollout: 0.250 s + 0.750 s (VHT prep)
Metric acceleration figures (for rest of the world):
▪ 0-100 km/h: 4.219 s
▪ 0-200 km/h: 11.489 s
▪ 0-300 km/h: 29.189 s
▪ Top speed: 338.429 km/h
▪ 0-380 m: 11.591 s @ 201.108 km/h (how prepped dragstrip testers measure the "400m" run)
▪ 0-400 m: 11.955 s @ 205.032 km/h
▪ 0-1000 m: 20.909 s @ 262.531 km/h

The top speed is actually about 335 kph / 208 mph without the carbon fiber (aero) package.

SportAauto (4/2018):
0-60 kph: 2.3 s
0-80 kph: 3.1 s
0-120 kph: 5.4 s
Slalom 18 m: 69.6 kph

Sport Auto (11/2015):
0-140 kph: 6.6 s
0-180 kph: 10.1 s

AutoBild Sportscars (7/July 2016):
Sachsenring: 1:36.45
0-100 kph: 3.7 s

Check out, the Mosler TwinStar, a 2000 Cadillac Eldorado with two engines.

The car used a 275 horsepower V8 on the front wheels, and a 300 horsepower V8 on the rear wheels for 575 horsepower. Each engine operated independently from another, and 0-60 was in about 5 seconds or less. Top speed was limited to 126 MPH, in excess of 200 without the limiter.

Soo.... what's the point of this car in my opinion: i can say that it's the american version of the BMW M6, but i think it is somehow more breathtaking, because every american car is made to be interesting and fun to enjoy on the road as well as on the track. It has a huuuuuuuge amount of horsepower, an incredibly big engine, much weight and it is long itself, of course because it is a 4 doors sedan and because.... it's an american car...
On the track it drives quickly and beats the BMW M2 timings (don't know the m6) and the Mercedes Benz c63 amg too by few seconds. Because of its weight its brakes are pretty horrible, so it brakes almost more than it acually accellerates, but when it accellerates... ohhh dear it's good.
although i think this car is not made to set laps,but just to be driven around and enoying every second

[2018 Cadillac CTS-V] Evo 6/2018 results:
0-30 mph = 2.0 s
0-40 mph = 2.7 s
0-50 mph = 3.3 s
0-60 mph = 3.9 s
0-70 mph = 4.6 s
0-80 mph = 5.4 s
0-90 mph = 6.5 s
0-100 mph = 7.4 s
0-110 mph = 9.5 s
0-120 mph = 10.2 s (1/4-mile: 11.8/127)
0-130 mph = 12.1 s
0-140 mph = 14.6 s
0-150 mph = 17.1 s
0-160 mph = 20.1 s (1000m: 20.9/164)
0-170 mph = 22.6 s
0-180 mph = 28.5 s
0-190 mph = 38.9 s
0-200 mph = 62.1 s

0-100: 3.7 s
0-160: 7.3 s
0-200: 10.9 s
0-250: 18.2 s
0-300: 36.4 s
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dedethecollector/41987106102/in/album-72157668838250888/

With a better driver the CTS-V should hit 186.4mph in 33sec.

0-100 mph. 7.5 s
0-150 mph: 17.4 s
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dedethecollector/20008358168/

@uptownfunker: If you don't like performance sedans, all I have to say is don't drive one.

https://youtu.be/vgN6a-eoNic CTS-V vs E63 S AMG 0-250km/h.

R&T has managed almost equal results....

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/road-tests/a26226/2016-cadillac-cts-v-instrumented-test-results/

The Big Three's Current Four-Door Hot-Rod Mood

Performance figures from the July 2015 issue of Road & Track
0-60 mph: 3.5 sec
1/4 mile: 11.6 sec @ 126.1 mph

Link: http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a26224/2016-cadillac-cts-v-first-drive/

Performance figures from the same date issue of Car and Driver
0-50 kph = 0-30 mph: 1.5 sec
0-80 kph = 0-50 mph: 2.8 sec
0-100 mph: 7.5 sec
0-130 mph: 13.6 sec
0-150 mph: 17.4 sec
0-170 mph: 25.8 sec
Rolling, 5-60 mph: 3.8 sec

Link: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-cts-v-test-review

PDF: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2016-cadillac-cts-v2016-cadillac-cts-v-test-sheet.pdf

Cadillac Europe
0-100 kph: 3.7 sec

Link: http://bit.ly/1UvTjRq

Automobile-Catalog's ProfessCars estimations
0-200 kph: 11.5 sec
0-300 kph: 39.1 sec
0-200 mph: 74.1 sec
0-1km: 20.7 sec

Link: http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2016/2094365/cadillac_cts-v.html

To be fair, the search feature doesn't work very well for cars with spaces and dashes in their model name.

So fakekiller probably searched for CTS V or CTSV and nothing came up.

Hp peak is at 6400 rpm, torque at 3600, weight is 4145 lb. Please fix!

Stop adding cars that have already been added

I'm gonna add the same page as this; this time with complete details. Please delete this one; we'll replace it.

Nah its been going on for years, But only more cars have been doing it as of lately, Back in the day it was a few from each company, Remember the Ruf CTR advertised 470Bhp? and F40 at 480Bhp? Which were really 600Bhp+, Buick GNX 280Bhp? Really 350Bhp+, Theres alot to list, But again, Its just more now, I actually think that a stock factory car, It should be illegal, That way everybody is honest and on the up n up, But whatever, We all no whats up/

Yes, the Germans have this new craze about underrating HP on their performance cars. I think they started with the Nissan GT-R (as a response to Nissan) and still haven't stopped.

It could have started from the Nissan GT-R but we should also remember that 2009 458 Italia eclipsed (in terms of performance) most serial supercars in its league. Porsche answered with 997 Turbo/S that had/have about 10-12 % more power than it was claimed. I think it was the Porsche brand which has started that practice of downplaying of power figures.

....This thing looks...Cheap? Vulgar and ordinary?......You must see S65s and F12s all the time....

And a dirty trick?....They are getting a new gen, And a new year..

And familiar with european type of design? Im european and i dont even understand that.

Youve gotta be THE most understood characters on FL.Com lol

Its dirty trick to call 2014 car a 2015 model year. Its done now by almost all american producers. They make in late moths of particular year a car and call it "next year model" its done even for smal |FaceLifts, so buyers have feel that they have all-new generation of the car.

As to this cadilac:
It look cheap to me, its vulgar, and ordinary. I dont like those cars, maybe beceause im to familiar with european type of design.

However it will be fast.

And i completely agree with that. Seems so much better, The car is just introduced in December 2014, So why call it 2014 MY? 2015 could work but again, Its gonna come out so late that 2016 would be more appropriate, New sounds better then older when concerning model years.