Skip to main content
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   NEWS   |   TECH ARTICLES   |   AT THE TRACK   |   REVIEWS   |   VIDEOS   |   CONTACT ME

All new 2016 Cadillac CTS-V




Okay, this is over three weeks old new. But, as I've done in the past a few times, I simply cannot exclude some cars when they debut from my blog. This is a perfect example, the new CTS-V. For one, look at the thing. I think it looks awesome. It's aggressive but not vulgar and, besides the grille and hood vents, looks almost discrete in a dark colour like the gunmetal grey below (okay, the quad exhausts are a giveaway as well).




We haven't even got to the best part yet, the supercharged beating heart making 640 hp. 640 hp. That is a lot more than the last generation's 556 hp and it actually needs less to be as quick. I was expecting Cadillac to give it a number around 600 hp and would have been very happy with that. It would have been a nice jump of about 50 hp from the last generation while having a better and lighter chassis. You can't complain about that. But no, they gave it 640 hp. For those who are bored by numbers, skip to the next paragraph. This car is around 200 lb. LIGHTER than the last generation. Looking back a test of a 2008 CTS with the 3.6 V6 (Car and Driver weighed it at 4,032 lbs) vs a 2014 CTS test with (basically) the same 3.6 V6 (Motor Trend weighed it at 3,840 lbs), that's very nearly 200 lbs. The last generation CTS-V weighed nearly 4,300 lbs so this one should come in around 4,100 lbs. In other words, it would have needed 530 hp to be as quick but they threw another 110 supercharged hp at it and wrapped it all in a much more capable chassis.




Speaking of the chassis, there are plenty of improvements there too. Cadillac used various braces to stiffen up the chassis by 25% compared to non V models. These include:
  • Strut tower-to-tower brace
  • Strut tower-to-plenum brace
  • V-braces for the engine compartment
  • Strengthened rocker bulkhead
  • Stronger rear cradle-to-rocker braces
  • A unique aluminum shear panel at the front of the chassis
  • Upper tie bar-to-bumper braces.
Other improvements were made in the form of stiffer wheels, bushings, springs and stabilizer (anti-roll) bars. Cadillac also revised the front suspension for better control and, as expected, the latest and greatest magneto-rheological shocks - i.e. Magnetic Ride Control in GM speak. This is the third generation which can respond 40% faster than the last generation which, according to Cadillac, can change the damping force every inch of the road at 60 mph (96 km/h). Rounding off the suspension are bigger Brembo brakes with six piston callipers up front clamping on 15.3 inch (390 mm) rotors and four pistons callipers in the back clamping on 14.3 inch (365 mm) rotors. 




Outside, the body was optimizer for aerodynamics to reduce lift, improve cooling or both. A carbon fibre hood is used to save weight with air-extracting vents that help directs air flow out of the engine bay and over the car instead of under which improves cooling as well as reduce lift. The front and rear fascias have also been improved and a front splitter, rocker mouldings, and a rear spoiler are used to reduce lift. A carbon fibre package is available to kick it up a notch with more aggressive front splitter, hood vent, rear diffuser and spoiler. 




I know this is bound to be phenomenal. 640 supercharged hp, lightweight (for the class), an already proven excellent chassis and Cadillac is also using an electronic limited-slip differential and Chevy did wonders with it in the Corvette Stingray. I also remember reading an early review of the C7 Corvette with the magnetic shocks and the person testing the car said that he has never driven a car on a track that was as forgiving on the rumble strips as the Corvette so we know the ride will still be great. It will have a top speed of 200 mph and will get to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds, according to Cadillac. For those who are interested in lap times, think about this. The current BMW M5 posted a lap time of 3:05.2 at VIR during Car and Driver's Lightning Lap. The E63 AMG S-Model put down 3:00.1. Meanwhile, the Camaro ZL1 was 2:57.5. This has about 70 hp more, will weigh the same or less with a much newer and better chassis and drivetrain. I would be very surprised if it weren't quicker than the ZL1. In other words, it will probably blow the competition out of the water.

I hope I can drive one when it comes out and can't wait to see a full test of it! For more information and details, visit: 2016 Cadillac CTS-V - Cadillac Media.


Comments

  1. Thank you for the report. This pretty much sums up everything this car is on paper, and furthers my expectations. I love the styling - although I confess to not being a huge fan of the carbon fiber package rear spoiler, perhaps it will blend a bit more seamlessly in the darker colors. I cannot wait for the real world road tests to start appearing. I may have found a new grail car in the 3rd generation CTS-V. Well done!

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment







Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.






Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.




🔥 Most Visited This Week

Michelin Pilot Super Sports vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 - Street Review

I've been a huge fan of Michelin PSS tires and exclusively bought them for the Mustang over the last four years. So how did I end up here? This year, I was hugely interested in trying an "R-comp" tire. I had my eyes set on Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's for two simple reasons: price and reputation. Although not a true "R-comp" tire on paper, it performs like one by the account of every single test and review I've read (down to wear rates...). They seem like they're easily the most affordable (from a big brand) R-comp tire and combine that with a reputation for having tons of grip, it was an easy top contender. I had my concerns, though. For one, I'm told and have read that they are an autox tire, not really designed for high speed, pressure, and temps associated with open track. For another, the Mustang is a heavy car (as far as track cars are concerned) being roughly 3,800 lb. (including driver), which will amplify the unwanted open track load

Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R Track Review

2012 Boss 302 on square 305/30/19 RE-71R's at AMP - Graham MacNeil © For better or for worse, I have heard and read so much about RE-71R's. Everyone swears by the grip but complains about the wear. Generally speaking, the pros are: 1. They grip as well or better than most R comps. 2. They don't wear as quickly as R comps if driven occasionally on the street. 3. They work better in the rain than R comps. The cons were limited to overheating quickly when used on track (being an autocross tire) and wearing too fast on heavy cars like mine. In the popular 200 TW category, they are faster than the popular Hankook RS-4's and BFGoodrich Rival S's according to published Tire Rack Tests. According to plenty of reviews, they are also faster than well established R comps like R888R's (which don't seem to work too well on heavy cars anyway) and the venerable NT01's. But I was still hesitant for a while until I talked to a tire tech support gentleman

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's vs Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's

I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one. The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would

Michelin PSS vs Firestone Indy 500 - Track Review

A couple of weeks ago, I posted my first impressions of Michelin's PSS vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. I've run PSS's for several years on the Boss, but I'm trying the Indy 500's for the first time. In short, I was worried about the narrower tires (I was running 285/35/18 PSS but could only find the Indy 500 in 275/35/18) and tread squirm, but I was happy with them up to that point just driving on the street. I had the chance to drive on them for three track days now. So what were they like? After my first session, they made an impression that basically persisted for the rest of track sessions on them. Phenomenal, unmatched value. Now, if value is something that stands out above all else, it typically means the compromise between qualities you want and those you don't is less than ideal, but the value is attractive. This is no different. I'll start with the bad, which really boil down to two: ultimate grip and grip longevity. Grip is noticeably l