What does /o/ think of the cadillac cts-v coupe? >6.2L v8

Pretty fucking god-tier. Wagon > all though.

>>17460810
i think that it weighs over 4000 lbs and is therefore shit

>>17460810
Prefer the Sedan or Wagon personally,

they're great. it's sad and kind of funny how they're totally ignored

pretty dank car, looks are a bit iffy for me but the performance is top notch.

File: 582nt2.jpg (57KB, 770x433px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 770x433px

Not OP but I'm really tempted to get a cts coupe as my next car but I'll probably get the v6 instead if the v8

I don't want a v8 since I'll be using this as my DD and I live in a city with heavy traffic. From time to time by job requires me to drive to other cities generally 20-30 miles away

The only problem I have with this car is the fucking weight. The engine is 3.6L V6 318hp which I don't think is bad. But the car weighs 3900lbs

What do bros? If I do get the v6 I was planning on tuning the engine to get a little bit more hp

>>17460907
Get the v8.

Also wagon a best.

>>17460907
Never get a v6 when v8 is an option you'll only regret it.

Also OP I love this car.

File: cadillac_cts-v wagon.jpg (74KB, 630x418px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 630x418px

>getting the coupe when the wagon exists
poor form

>>17460996
also there's like three cts-v manual wagons on sale in the states and they're 60k+

File: Rpm5905382nk42249.jpg (116KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1920x1080px

>>17460813
>>17460918
>>17460996

Why do you guys like wagons so much?

I'm not really into the aesthetic's of them

>polarizing

that's a good way to put it

CTS-V wagon, one of the best looking cars on the road
CTS-V coupe, needs to be killed with fire then launched into space to prevent infecting other designs

>>17460907
American v8 engines are indestructible. Don't get the v6.

>>17461039

Because they're useful, can store a lot of stuff, can still go fast around corners. Coupes meanwhile are only so useful, but might gain 10% in performance.

>>17461055

Don't downplay the V6, it's a good engine too.

Only bad part are the stock spark plugs are weak.

I just drove one of those V6s 1000 miles up the east coast and through NYC, they're worth their weight

ugliest coupe I've seen, how the wagon didn't sell like hotcakes sitting next to this is beyond me

>>17461064

>I just drove one of those V6s 1000 miles up the east coast and through NYC, they're worth their weight

Nice what do you have? Pics?

File: bmw e39 wagon black.jpg (89KB, 736x401px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 736x401px

>>17461039
long, low, mean looking, super practical without sacrificing dynamics

File: IMG_9171.gif (2MB, 260x195px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x195px

>>17461128
>mean looking

File: cadillac cts v wagon.jpg (107KB, 720x465px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 720x465px

>>17461228
are you trying to imply something

>>17461099

It's a 2008 STS. Heavy, but it does the job

File: 55590537757249.png (971KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 1024x680px

>>17461294

How did the engine handle the weight? Did the car "feel powerful and fast" or did it feel sluggish?

300hp sounds nice but I'm unsure how it handles that weight

>>17461398

>handle the weight
even taking it through the mountains, there was enough torque to get to the speed i wanted

>feel powerful and fast
when it drops from 6th to 4th then it does

>did it feel sluggish
if you're willing to push the gas pedal down, it will have plenty of power

but i also drive a 140hp civic, so i was content

if you want something that feels powerful and fast, get a V8. i was just saying that the V6 is a good motor for a daily driver

Aside the avista concept every alpha platform coupe look like shit.

>>17460817
This. The couple is ugly as shit, but the wagon and sedan are nice looking. A manual CTS-V wagon was my dream car for a while, but I was never able to find one so I bought a hellcat instead.

there's always one or two for sale country wide, how could you not find one through cars.com or autotrader?

would have been cheaper than a hellcat actually

>>17461514

There are literally 0 manual wagons for sale in america right now on Autotrader.com. Didn't check cars.com. Trust me, I looked for a very long time, and the manuals had a hefty premium on the Autos, so a manual with 30k miles on it was running 60k. I only paid two more for my hellcat and I got more horsepower and what it honestly a better looking car. I have started to prefer curves over edges.

File: cts v manual wagons on autotrader.jpg (189KB, 777x1071px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 777x1071px

>>17461552
>There are literally 0 manual wagons for sale in america right now on Autotrader.com.
uh, there are four?
and two on cars.com
if you're searching for the CTS-V model you're only going to get 2016/2017. The last gen cts-v had the cts model name and V was a trim on it.

you're right about the price premium though, the autos are much cheaper. On the flip side of that though, they are holding their value incredibly well and it's actually going up

>>17461590
Well, I just searched manual wagons and those didn't come up, but I wasn't going to pay 70 grand for a three year old used car when I got a new hellcat for 62.

>>17460813
>this x1000

>>17461410

I'm just asking cause I'm currently driving a 2004 Mercedes

It's v6 has around 220 hp and you can feel the power when you push the pedal down but doesn't necessarily feel fast

Figured rwd car with 320 hp should be good enough for me. I don't need anything too crazy.

>/o/ fags hate crossovers / light suvs
>/o/ loves bloated wagons that are literally crossovers

fags

>>17461799
/o/ doesn't cars that are made in america

>>17461799
>CTS-V wagon
>even remotely close to a crossover
The fuck are you smoking?

>>17461799
>bloated wagons that are literally crossovers
>meanwhile crossovers are pretty much always underpowered overweight and raised up far to high to have any kind of handling potential
i don't get it

>>17461056
doug de meme says the wagon ctsv has pretty much no extra space over the sedan though

>>17461815
>4000 fucking lbs
>4 door wagon

what is the difference between this and a crossover design with 4 doors and a hatch style rear entry


>Muh handling

its a wagon you're already comprising the handling

>underpowered overweight

they're based on typical sedans generally. they're just big unibody cars

>honestly thinking the 4 door wagon "looks" better than the 2 door coupe CTS-V

you're a bunch of fucking hipsters who are full of their own shit

>>17461908
Seating position, ride height and overall vehicle height are pretty much what separates a wagon from a crossover, and the CTS-V firmly falls into the "wagon" category.
It's not exactly trying to look like an actual off-road capable vehicle, is it?

>>17460814
only a sith deals in absolutes

>>17462040
fucken kek

>>17460810

Does anyone on /o/ own a caddy?

What does /o/ think of the new ones?

I think the new Cadillac's have the potential to overtake BMW and mrecedes for luxury performance

>niggerlac

>>17462919
'07 cts 3.6L sedan here.
First gen is the best looking.

>>17463428

Pics?

I was so close to getting that as my first car but I really disliked the interior.

File: cad5a.jpg (131KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x512px

>>17463567
All the performance goodies available.
Bought it with 28k on the clock.

>>17460810
i think the sedan looks better

>>17460810
They are cool an all but imo all the ones pre 2016 are ugly.

>>17460810
That ass is just repulsive

>>17460810

It looks shit in the coupe form.

>caddy

meh

>>17461590
These Basketball Americans are fucking insane. Literally two years ago these were selling for the same price N-E-W.

>>17461039
Because they are not faggoty crossovers, but do useful crossover stuff while driving like an actual car.

CTS-V Coupe is AIDS.
Sedan is sex
Wagon is sexual nirvana

The ATS-V coupe looks better desu. Just wish there was an ATS-V Wagon

>>17462919
they already have, functionally

but end of the day all that matters is sales, and bmw is riding off decades of being top dog in sport luxury and using their huge marketing engine to stay on top....even though they're somewhat dull and very heavy and uninspired now. basically mercedes but worse

>>17464070
its rare, has good performance, and is a very unique combination (v8 manual wagon), definitely a collector's car

>>17464347
>dull and very heavy and uninspired now

Yeah that's very sad but true, there used to be a huge difference between bmw and mercedes but now the differences are much smaller

Used to be known as the sporty, light yet reliable cars for fun spirited driving. Now they're just overweight luxobarges like mercedes.

>>17461039

Because it fucking makes sense for the CTS-V.

The coupe just really looks like a mutant of some kind because the car is so tall, the belt-line is so high, and the rear is so high. It's like if someone kinda wanted to do a shorting brake, but then decided to just fuck it all up and turn it into a regular coupe instead.

Look at that vast expanse of blank sheetmetal between the wheel well and the top lines of the rear quarter panel - it's so freaking awkward.

>>17461908

Space, you fucking mouth-breather.

You fold the rear seats down and you get epic amounts of cargo space, especially in terms of length.

File: _Cadillac-CTS-Coupe-Concept-design-lg.jpg (228KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1600x1200px

>>17464394

OP here.

I kinda like how the coupe looks. It gives is a unique look. Wish it looked a bit more like the concept art tho

How would you fix the back?

>>17460813
I've only seen one of these out in the wild. A million sedans and coupes though.

Wagons are gay

File: 03_09cadillacxlrv.jpg (87KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 750x422px

>>17464430
Level out the beltline, slope the rear less then make the trunk flat like the XLR but not as extreme. The hiked up rear and ruins these cars for me and I want to like them.

File: sl.jpg (346KB, 1434x759px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1434x759px

>>17464580

R I P O F F
I
P
O
F
F

>>17460822
That's actually a good thing for buyers. You can get some great deals on a used cts-v, even the ats-v is reasonable.

>>17464593
A U T O T R A G I C
only the AMG 72 model got a worthwhile tranny.

File: 1496547245499.jpg (53KB, 432x261px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 432x261px

>>17460907
>won't get the V8 (which has more power)
>considering tuning the V6 to gain more power, and voiding any possible warranties in the process

File: 05ctsvcoupefd2011EDIT3.jpg (193KB, 720x957px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 720x957px

>>17464580

Like this?

I couldnt do the beltline

>>17464528
Yep

>>17464911
eccept less window

>>17461046
This. Irl the proportions are disgusting

christ thats ugly

>>17465299

It's designed to scare off old people so they don't buy Cadillac's anymore, which fixes the brand image.
Unfortunately GM forgot that old people are half fucking blind, so they can't see the car to be scared off by it, so they still buy it.

File: IMG_20170603_172320.jpg (4MB, 4640x2610px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4640x2610px

Honestly the second generation CTS-V is not the best choice but not a bad one. It can really only shine as a Dyno queen, otherwise a Camaro ZL1 or Corvette ZR1 outperforms it in every way due to having the same engine. Yes, it is more comfortable than those choices, but the interior does feel tacky or try hard in places and it's well known Cadillac's infotainment system is a massive turd. Stock they are too quiet. Your first mods will most likely be just trying to hear anything. The autotragic sucks the life out of it. The manual mode shifts are super sluggish and stomping on it takes a second for it to down shift. Don't even try "b-but manual is obsolete!" There's a .3 second difference in 0-60, guarantee the the highway passing and track speeds are faster with the manual. I think the coupe looks good but the visibility is very Camaro tier.

>>17464911

I kinda like it now

>>17464349
>wagon
>collectors car
wew lad

File: favcars.com_[1].jpg (908KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 1600x1200px

>>17465987
Yes?

>>17464911

You made it go from unique looking to generic as fuck

I like the original

File: 12657956_1053421961347134_6031350728927720444_o.jpg (154KB, 853x960px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 853x960px

>>17460810
>fast
>nice interior
>looks like garbage

Looks like trash styling wise. It'll be interesting when Lincoln finally rolls out their 2 door.

>>17466904
>looks like garbage
thankfully the newer CTS (and ATS to lesser extent) exist

>>17466776
No one cares how unique it is if it's ugly as shit

Putting a dildo on the roof of your car is pretty unique too but it doesn't look good does it?

>>17466776
the original has 2000 lbs of ass, its a big bar of edgy soap