2009 Cadillac CTS-V

Whatever already, different sources will say different things, most people should care if they really know what the car can do, like me, i no what it can do first hand, but i really couldnt care to much what it says up there. dont see what the fuss is about. just enjoy da cars.

Whatever already, different sources will say different things, most people should care if they really know what the car can do, like me, i no what it can do first hand, but i really couldnt care to much what it says up there. dont see what the fuss is about. just enjoy da cars.

^I'll make it easier for people who don't believe the 0-300kph time. (page 6)

http://www.cargraphic.de/stepone/data/downloads/b3/11/00/SportAu to_1009.pdf

the time is correct tested during a huge 0-300km/h shootout

stop posting pointless speedclock videos ...they are all incorrect by miles specially at speeds north of 125mph/200km/h

No, thats some bullshit.

The 0-300 time posted cant possibly be correct.. can it?

i wonder ... most people are getting from 0-260 in 24.5 second .. so it need 50 sec to go from 260 to 300 .. thats cheap and rediciulus !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSWyynDrWgE

I dont think id be quite that fast, thats faster than a 430 and Murcielago, i think it would be closer to 1:24.1, but hey, thas just my guess.

about 1:22.8 id guess

Top Gear Track Guess AnyOne?

haha ... cts-v frpm 0-100 or 160 in just 8.7 not 9.7 as bmw guy told ... cts-v role !!!

Why would you post a slower time when a faster time has ben proven? by an Actuall test?

this car does not go 0-100 mph in 8.7 seconds it is actually 9.7 seconds it is here at http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:D7WpAuqia5EJ:sportscarforums .com/f13/0-100-mph-29441.html+audi+s8+0-100+mph+11.0&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Most likely that 3.9s to 100kmh was a mix up with 0-60mph times, but, with the right driver, i do believe 0-60mph times can be achieved in 3.7, but until then.

If the US magazines start to report 0-60 times of 3.7 i'd beleive 0-100kph in 3.9 but until we see a good impartial test I would not think 3.9 is realistic.

0-100 kph is done in the same 3.9 seconds as the 0-60 read this http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/01/30/395450.html

This car is pretty amazing from the looks of it.
Assuming GM keeps making them I could see waiting a couple years and snagging one at a fairly low cost (sub $40k price range).
Tasty...

I know the CTS-V tires aren't "special" but taking into account that tire technology is always improving, I think the CTS-V has some advantages (hp/technology/etc.) to counter it's disadvantages (weight/size/etc.)

The Caddy is hella impressive, no doubt.

I think the NSX-R had Bridgestone Potenza RE070 215/40R17 & rear 255/40R17. (I could be wrong, I've never seen a true NSX-R in person.)

The CTS-V has 255/40YR19 and 285/35YR19 Michelin Pilot Sport 2.

I'm not putting either car down but times change. It's hard to compare cars from different eras.

“Anonymous 6 hours ago [Delete] [Ban IP]
^^ NSX vs CTS-V.
Double the hp plus newer tires and technology helps...lol ”

the NSX-R was a 2002 model equipped with street legal sport tires... the CTS-V is nearly 2to running on normal Michelin Pilot Sport tires.. no special street legal semi slicks..

55 seconds from 200 to 300 tell me this car is struggling when it gets over 200 as it is definitly not a top end car as the BMWs are all top end.

^^ NSX vs CTS-V.
Double the hp plus newer tires and technology helps...lol

pretty amazing that a big US 4door sedan beat in a German track test the time of the lastest evolution stage of a 2 seater midengine japanese sportcar icon ...

sportauto set a new Hockenheim laptime... big improvement over the sportscars laptime from some weeks ago...

I totaly agree with CTS-V

Also the guy who was driving CTS-V was pure BMW guy so he was bad shifting .. any way but BMW M5 against auto CTS-V from 0-300 and CTS-V will eat M5 so easily !!!