CTS. More or less?

[big swede]

Originally Posted by Ambalanche

Exactly right. I'm always amazed when the auto press talks about 35lbs here, 15lbs there. Do you always ride alone in your car? Just don't let that overweight person ride with you and your good!

There is a massive difference between 250lbs sitting in the seat next to you and being attached to the drivetrain.

I understand some people wanting AWD but I will never understand wanting AWD for the 2 days a year that it makes you feel safer as compared to the other 300+ days of enjoyment. This year in the midwest we have had the worst winter as far as snow accumulation in a long time and I would have had 1 nervous day driving a RWD car all winter. I guess I'm not old enough to let 1 or 2 days a year scare me into a platform with so many added shortcomings.

If were talking lightweight high powered cars then it's an entirely different story.

[goblue]

Originally Posted by big swede

There is a massive difference between 250lbs sitting in the seat next to you and being attached to the drivetrain.

I understand some people wanting AWD but I will never understand wanting AWD for the 2 days a year that it makes you feel safer as compared to the other 300+ days of enjoyment. This year in the midwest we have had the worst winter as far as snow accumulation in a long time and I would have had 1 nervous day driving a RWD car all winter. I guess I'm not old enough to let 1 or 2 days a year scare me into a platform with so many added shortcomings.

If were talking lightweight high powered cars then it's an entirely different story.

The issue is people in certain careers just have to be at work - there are no excuses, no waiting a few hours, etc. You are expected to come in sick (to a point). Weather is also not a valid excuse until the snow is measured in feet instead of inches. Many enthusiasts in this situation don't want to insure and maintain a separate car for those few days a year - and don't care for SUVs, nor have garage space.

Tgagneguam got me thinking - and what I would really like is an AWD hardtop convertible. Volvo makes one, but its not what one would call a driver's car. Then I'd have a true, year round car.

[jzEllis]

i guess, i'm glad that theres a AWD CTS and at the same time completely unimpressed. AWD cars are like wearing snow boots all year round in my opinion. but hey, if it makes u more secure go for it! i've never gotten stuck in a AWD car though, but then again i've never gotton stuck in a snow tire equiped RWD car either. but ironically, i've gotten stuck and slid of the road in numerous FWD cars. i will admit though that it was probaly due more to the fact that they were running all season tires than the fact that they were front wheel drive.

wait i take part of that back, when i ran off the road, i KNOW it was because they were FWD...uncorrectable understeer is a b#tch!

[racy]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

All things being equal, I have trouble believing most of us here would notice 250 lbs. I know I wouldn't be able to tell the difference with a full sized passenger in my Corvette. Maybe the rest of you have more sensitive tushes than I do.

We're enthusiasts on this site. If there exists a group of people who *would* notice an extra 250 pounds, it would be people on this site.

This is like having a really big friend driving shotgun. Accelleration, handling and braking will all be noticeable to us.

For those of us who race, the first thing we do is kick our 250 pound friend out of the passenger seat when we're making a serious run.

I've seen and experienced the following scenario many times. Two cars racing, one has a passenger, the other doesn't. Its a close race, with the non-passenger vehicle edging out a win every trime. Drivers agree to swap the passenger and run again. Results are different this time, with the original loser now edging out for a win.

250 pounds is equivalent to 25 horse power. Seen from this point of view, its clear how significant 250 pounds can be.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by big swede

...I understand some people wanting AWD but I will never understand wanting AWD for the 2 days a year that it makes you feel safer as compared to the other 300+ days of enjoyment. This year in the midwest we have had the worst winter as far as snow accumulation in a long time and I would have had 1 nervous day driving a RWD car all winter. I guess I'm not old enough to let 1 or 2 days a year scare me into a platform with so many added shortcomings...

If consumers want AWD cars, mega-horsepower cars, cars loaded with superfluous techno goodies, cars with 8-speed transmissions, and more, GM shouldn't question the wisdom, it should figure a way to build them. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, per se. Other luxury marques that figure out how to deliver them will profit from them, and GM will have lost sales and profit if it chooses to sit on the sidelines and offer only what it deems logical. GM forever tried to convince people that anything more than 4-speeds wasn't logical. That argument played out beautifully, n'est-ce pas?

GM seems to justify certain things that often don't make much sense: gigantic FS SUV's that frequently ferry only one passenger is one example that comes quickly to mind. Nonetheless, GM certainly put forth a great effort building them, and it profitted handsomely, too.

Time for AWD to be applied throughout its lineup where appropriate. And that includes in the CTS.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

If consumers want AWD cars, mega-horsepower cars, cars loaded with superfluous techno goodies, cars with 8-speed transmissions, and more, GM shouldn't question the wisdom, it should figure a way to build them. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, per se. Other luxury marques that figure out how to deliver them will profit from them, and GM will have lost sales and profit if it chooses to sit on the sidelines and offer only what it deems logical. GM forever tried to convince people that anything more than 4-speeds wasn't logical. That argument played out beautifully, n'est-ce pas?

GM seems to justify certain things that often don't make much sense: gigantic FS SUV's that frequently ferry only one passenger is one example that comes quickly to mind. Nonetheless, GM certainly put forth a great effort building them, and it profitted handsomely, too.

Time for AWD to be applied throughout its lineup where appropriate. And that includes in the CTS.

I agree with what you and goblue had to say about the AWD CTS. I'm not doubting for a second that there is a crowd for this car and in fact GM should produce it. I was just pointing out that it would be a big enough change in driving dynamics that the CTS would no longer be the car I feel it is for me. So many people hear AWD and think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but for me, it ruins this type of car.

Your taking a fun car, that is fairly portly, but makes nice power so it doesn't feel it's weight. It has an excellent interior handles nicely and gets decent hp like a proper sport sedan should be. Now take that same car and add 250lbs to it with a lot of that in rotational driveline weight. This will eat into the gas mileage so now add taller gearing to make the mileage equal to the RWD which kills the snappy response and makes the weight very apparent. More weight with the same equipment equalls longer braking distances. Then put a slower ratio steering box in it to match the slower driveline response and you have taken a super nice sport sedan and turned it into an SUV without the room.

[JBsZ06]

I bought an AWD FE2 3.6 DI CTS back in october and its been a great vehicle. Accelerates nicely. Handles well. Does great in the snow.

Big win for cadillac and for all of us who bought one.

zero to 60mph in 6.3 seconds is fast. I have'nt noticed any concerns otherwise and my other car is a LS3 C6 Manual.

[PA Dweller]

Its great that GM is adding AWD to Cadillac's vehicles, but for God sakes add AWD to lower priced vehicles already. Not everyone can afford a $50k vehicle. An AWD vehicle in the $20k-$30k range would be really appreciated.

Originally Posted by big swede

I agree with what you and goblue had to say about the AWD CTS. I'm not doubting for a second that there is a crowd for this car and in fact GM should produce it. I was just pointing out that it would be a big enough change in driving dynamics that the CTS would no longer be the car I feel it is for me. So many people hear AWD and think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but for me, it ruins this type of car.

Your taking a fun car, that is fairly portly, but makes nice power so it doesn't feel it's weight. It has an excellent interior handles nicely and gets decent hp like a proper sport sedan should be. Now take that same car and add 250lbs to it with a lot of that in rotational driveline weight. This will eat into the gas mileage so now add taller gearing to make the mileage equal to the RWD which kills the snappy response and makes the weight very apparent. More weight with the same equipment equalls longer braking distances. Then put a slower ratio steering box in it to match the slower driveline response and you have taken a super nice sport sedan and turned it into an SUV without the room.

So how about not ordering the AWD option? Leave it for people who appreciate it.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by PA Dweller

So how about not ordering the AWD option? Leave it for people who appreciate it.

That's exactly what I said. I think it is a great option for a certain percentage of the people. Just because it would ruin the reason for me to buy the car doesn't mean I don't think Cadillac should make it avialable. It would then make the car a viable choice for the northern states or for someone who isn't really into the sport aspect of a sport sedan. I also think it should be available on the smaller B-series Cadillacs. A lighter B-series with the same powertrains as the C-series would take much better advantage of the AWD capabilities and would probably maintain more of the sport because of that.

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by big swede

That's exactly what I said. I think it is a great option for a certain percentage of the people. Just because it would ruin the reason for me to buy the car doesn't mean I don't think Cadillac should make it avialable. It would then make the car a viable choice for the northern states or for someone who isn't really into the sport aspect of a sport sedan. I also think it should be available on the smaller B-series Cadillacs. A lighter B-series with the same powertrains as the C-series would take much better advantage of the AWD capabilities and would probably maintain more of the sport because of that.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Up here 3-4 months a year you have snow and most people have at least one AWD vehicle to make it through. I have no problem with RWD, its necessary if you have a powerful engine but for a primary vehicle I would feel safer with AWD due to where I live. I would be happy with a RWD biased AWD vehicle if I could afford one. I also like the idea of a lightweight/smaller AWD Cadillac's.

I know a bit off topic but I really want to see GM make a AWD sedan available for Buick, Chevy, and Saturn. Which they all lack now and would sell well in areas like here. I know they are coming but its taking too long.

[F14CRAZY]

200-some pounds makes a 304 or so hp car lethargic? Think of the performance benefit if you and your passengers took up a diet.

What's this world coming to? My Forester is pretty thrilling to drive with over a hundred less hp

[big swede]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

200-some pounds makes a 304 or so hp car lethargic? Think of the performance benefit if you and your passengers took up a diet.

What's this world coming to? My Forester is pretty thrilling to drive with over a hundred less hp

As I said before it's much different when a lot of that weight is on the drivetrain. Then they put taller gearing in it to get the gas mileage back up. On top of that they add a sloppier steering box. So it's much more pronounced than having a buddy in the passenger seat.

Rotational weight is approximatley 10 times worse than non rotational weight. If you add ten pounds to a driveshaft it is approximatly like having 100lbs of sand in the trunk. And once again it's not just the weight it's the gearing and steering ratio. I'm not saying it makes the car terrible I'm saying it takes the car out of the sport sedan category for me because these changes dull the most important aspects of a sport sedan.

[F14CRAZY]

I suppose I read through it too quick...I see what you mean by rotational weight versus just like weight in the trunk

[goblue]

Originally Posted by big swede

As I said before it's much different when a lot of that weight is on the drivetrain. Then they put taller gearing in it to get the gas mileage back up. On top of that they add a sloppier steering box. So it's much more pronounced than having a buddy in the passenger seat.

Rotational weight is approximatley 10 times worse than non rotational weight. If you add ten pounds to a driveshaft it is approximatly like having 100lbs of sand in the trunk. And once again it's not just the weight it's the gearing and steering ratio. I'm not saying it makes the car terrible I'm saying it takes the car out of the sport sedan category for me because these changes dull the most important aspects of a sport sedan.

Then make the driveshaft lighter - use better materials. I'll take the hit in gas mileage. No problem. My problem is GM dialed it back - I would have gone the other way, increased the ratio to deal with the added weight, used better materials, leave the steering fast, etc - and let those of us who want it take the gas hit. Then, offer the smaller engine with the lower final drive as the fuel conscious choice.

BTW, the Forester is AWD - that was his point...

Also, its still a sports sedan as is. Unless you're going to limit the definition to 1% of vehicles sold. Its far more of a sports sedan than say, the TL, ES300, Camry, Accord, Malibu, Aura, Maxima, Legacy, A6 FWD, and the list goes on.

[ATPeele]

Anyone else notice the CTS Sport Concept in the gallery section of that page? Is that from SEMA?