GM has Redeemed Itself......CTS-V Wagon
12-07-2010, 10:40 AM
#1
GM has Redeemed Itself......CTS-V Wagon First time posting in the CTS-V forum, always admired these cars. But what I discovered last night just blew my mind.
When the "SUV boom" began in the mid '80s, I remember reminiscing about the big-block station wagons that were built in the '60s and early '70s. I considered the big, heavy, anemic "Sport Utility Vehicles" that were rapidly becoming popular a farce. There wasn't any "sport" in those things that couldn't break into the 16s in a 1/4 mile, were top-heavy and handled like trucks! Now a 455-powered Vista Cruiser that ran 14s, now THAT was a "sport utility vehicle". And I'm sure, even as poorly sprung as they were, that they'd run circles around any Blazer, Bronco, Yukon, Suburban, Expedition etc etc. I always contended that, other than the AWD feature that was "needed" 3-4 days a year, a good old-fashoned station wagon was a much better suited "utility" vehicle for a family than any over-hyped "SUV". My disdain for anthing labeled "SUV" is no secret amongst my friends.
Until Dodge introduced the 340HP HEMI Magnum in 2004, I was sure the good old day's of V8-powered station wagons was ancient history. Then a few years later, the 425HP SRT8 Magnum became available. Now THAT was a "SPORT Utility Vehicle" that fit my ideals. And I can no longer deny that a 400HP Trail Blazer SS and a 425HP SRT8 Jeep Grand Cherokee both meet my definition of a "SPORT Utility Vehicle". But when Cadillac introduced it's CTS "Sport Wagon" a year or so ago, I lamented that GM would NEVER have the ***** to put a 556HP V drivetrain in something that practical. Maybe a 400+HP LS3 and "call it a V".
But no. Reading the latest C&D 10-Best article, I noted amongst their praises of the CTS-V a mention that it was available as a "sedan, coupe and wagon". WHAT? That must be a mis-print, or they were referring to the regular CTS. So to check it out, I logged into Cadillac.com and sure enough, a CTS-V Sport Wagon becomes available in Dec 2010. And not watered-down w/ less than 500HP or automatic only. It has the same 556HP S/C 6.2L w/ 6-speed manual or automatic drivetrain as the CTS-V sedan and coupes. WOW. Despite my displeasure w/ GM for killing Pontiac, Oldsmobile and the Firebird, they have redeemed themselves with the introduction of a 500+HP 6-speed station wagon. This has GOT to be the most radical station wagon to come out of Detroit. CRAZY I tell you!
SO, who's going to order one?
When the "SUV boom" began in the mid '80s, I remember reminiscing about the big-block station wagons that were built in the '60s and early '70s. I considered the big, heavy, anemic "Sport Utility Vehicles" that were rapidly becoming popular a farce. There wasn't any "sport" in those things that couldn't break into the 16s in a 1/4 mile, were top-heavy and handled like trucks! Now a 455-powered Vista Cruiser that ran 14s, now THAT was a "sport utility vehicle". And I'm sure, even as poorly sprung as they were, that they'd run circles around any Blazer, Bronco, Yukon, Suburban, Expedition etc etc. I always contended that, other than the AWD feature that was "needed" 3-4 days a year, a good old-fashoned station wagon was a much better suited "utility" vehicle for a family than any over-hyped "SUV". My disdain for anthing labeled "SUV" is no secret amongst my friends.
Until Dodge introduced the 340HP HEMI Magnum in 2004, I was sure the good old day's of V8-powered station wagons was ancient history. Then a few years later, the 425HP SRT8 Magnum became available. Now THAT was a "SPORT Utility Vehicle" that fit my ideals. And I can no longer deny that a 400HP Trail Blazer SS and a 425HP SRT8 Jeep Grand Cherokee both meet my definition of a "SPORT Utility Vehicle". But when Cadillac introduced it's CTS "Sport Wagon" a year or so ago, I lamented that GM would NEVER have the ***** to put a 556HP V drivetrain in something that practical. Maybe a 400+HP LS3 and "call it a V".
But no. Reading the latest C&D 10-Best article, I noted amongst their praises of the CTS-V a mention that it was available as a "sedan, coupe and wagon". WHAT? That must be a mis-print, or they were referring to the regular CTS. So to check it out, I logged into Cadillac.com and sure enough, a CTS-V Sport Wagon becomes available in Dec 2010. And not watered-down w/ less than 500HP or automatic only. It has the same 556HP S/C 6.2L w/ 6-speed manual or automatic drivetrain as the CTS-V sedan and coupes. WOW. Despite my displeasure w/ GM for killing Pontiac, Oldsmobile and the Firebird, they have redeemed themselves with the introduction of a 500+HP 6-speed station wagon. This has GOT to be the most radical station wagon to come out of Detroit. CRAZY I tell you!
SO, who's going to order one?
12-07-2010, 03:43 PM
#6
According to Cadillac's spec sheets, its only ~ 100 lbs heavier than the sedan, probably in the place (rear) that helps improve its F/R balance.
Trending Topics
12-07-2010, 07:33 PM
#8
Is it just me or is there no ctsv wagon?! I see the cts sport wagon but nothing in V.. And the picture up top.. The red one.. It looks photoshopped... Please correct me lol
12-07-2010, 07:36 PM
#10
wagons made moms look like moms. too bad moms didnt get the memo that suv's still made them look fat.
In all seriousness, wagons were cars that even men could drive. They got a tough time, but they were better than the SUV (in like, every way). Do I think the US is ready for the wagon again, **** no. It's gotten worse. People want economy, and they want giant truck like vehicles. The customer has no idea what they want, they just want something crazier than the neighbor.
Gas prices killed the muscle car. Yes, I own a 4th gen, but imagine if the gas crises never happened, would we have the economy and electronics we have now? would we have crazy *** fast cars, did late 70's cars look ugly because of the price of gas, or did LSD **** up every engineer since 1971?
I post on ls1tech retartedly drunk every couple of months, this is the result.
In all seriousness, wagons were cars that even men could drive. They got a tough time, but they were better than the SUV (in like, every way). Do I think the US is ready for the wagon again, **** no. It's gotten worse. People want economy, and they want giant truck like vehicles. The customer has no idea what they want, they just want something crazier than the neighbor.
Gas prices killed the muscle car. Yes, I own a 4th gen, but imagine if the gas crises never happened, would we have the economy and electronics we have now? would we have crazy *** fast cars, did late 70's cars look ugly because of the price of gas, or did LSD **** up every engineer since 1971?
I post on ls1tech retartedly drunk every couple of months, this is the result.
12-08-2010, 02:16 AM
#13
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scottsdale, Az
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am absolutely going to be picking one of these up in a few years on the used market. I love them. A blacked out 550hp wagon with a man pedal, how is that not badass?
12-08-2010, 04:47 AM
#15
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Helendale
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think caddy is on a good track. V are trying to compeat with all the Euro sports cars. i like all 3 of the V2s, but i would still go for the sedan over the other.
Sedan we all know what they want to beat, the M5s and AMG sedans.
Coupe is going after the M3 and CL 63.
Wagon will be going to compete with nothing...since they dont bring the C class AMG to the US. and since dodge pulled the SRT8 Mangum off show rooms.
12-09-2010, 07:43 AM
#18
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's really cool too. But the problem I see with it is the CTS wagon just isn't that large. The roofline cuts down and it's not that wide.
Wagons back in the 80's and before, they were huge. A Caprice wagon, you could fit a 4x8' sheet in that thing, just like an SUV or truck.
The CTS wagon has utility more like a bigger hatchback vs a truck. You could probably drive your dogs around in it, but you couldn't put like a dresser or a desk in there, or bring drywall home. That said, a V is probably too nice to do that with, but it still begs the question, what is the real point?
I think it's neat they offer a wagon, but if I were to buy one, I'd go with the sedan.
Wagons back in the 80's and before, they were huge. A Caprice wagon, you could fit a 4x8' sheet in that thing, just like an SUV or truck.
The CTS wagon has utility more like a bigger hatchback vs a truck. You could probably drive your dogs around in it, but you couldn't put like a dresser or a desk in there, or bring drywall home. That said, a V is probably too nice to do that with, but it still begs the question, what is the real point?
I think it's neat they offer a wagon, but if I were to buy one, I'd go with the sedan.
12-09-2010, 01:35 PM
#19
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scottsdale, Az
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's really cool too. But the problem I see with it is the CTS wagon just isn't that large. The roofline cuts down and it's not that wide.
Wagons back in the 80's and before, they were huge. A Caprice wagon, you could fit a 4x8' sheet in that thing, just like an SUV or truck.
The CTS wagon has utility more like a bigger hatchback vs a truck. You could probably drive your dogs around in it, but you couldn't put like a dresser or a desk in there, or bring drywall home. That said, a V is probably too nice to do that with, but it still begs the question, what is the real point?
I think it's neat they offer a wagon, but if I were to buy one, I'd go with the sedan.
Wagons back in the 80's and before, they were huge. A Caprice wagon, you could fit a 4x8' sheet in that thing, just like an SUV or truck.
The CTS wagon has utility more like a bigger hatchback vs a truck. You could probably drive your dogs around in it, but you couldn't put like a dresser or a desk in there, or bring drywall home. That said, a V is probably too nice to do that with, but it still begs the question, what is the real point?
I think it's neat they offer a wagon, but if I were to buy one, I'd go with the sedan.
12-09-2010, 01:58 PM
#20
For sure, the wagon is no substitute for a truck or full-size SUV, but it probably has as much utility as a mid-size SUV or cross-over like the SRX. One thing I like about wagons is that they are lower and sleeker than a SUV pushing all that wind, better for MPGs. Also, the way I see it, for the same price as a V2 coupe or sedan, you have more utility at minimal penalty in weight (~100 lbs). If you have small children using strollers and "stuff", the extra capacity of the wagon might just make the difference in how many christmas presents you can take home on a shopping trip (been there, done that).
Most of all, I think its great GM has ***** enough to offer a 556HP 6-spd wagon that can carve corners. You won't see Ford doing that. Ever.