Jaguar Pulls Out Of CTS-V Challenge

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

If we’re learning anything from the twists and turns leading into GM’s Cadillac V-Series Challenge, it’s that a good stunt is hard to stage these days [unless you have access to China’s rich reserves of stunt drivers, as shown above]. Jaguar’s US PR boss Stuart Schorr has informed us that his firm’s legal and safety advisers have put the kibosh on the XF-R’s planned entry into the event. Because Jaguar was previously the only manufacturer to enter the race, the pullout leaves TTAC, Jalopnik and the New York Times’ Lawrence Ullrich without an OEM-backed ride. As a result, the media challengers (as we’re being called) will go mano-a-mano with Bob Lutz in… a CTS-V. Which makes the event a bit more of “may the best man win” than “may the best car win,” but then that’s not exactly our problem, is it? [Don’t miss the literal Chinese fire drill at 1:56]

Well, only a problem in the sense that “everyone is scared of us” is a less compelling PR line than “we raced ’em and won.” Sure, it’s a debatable point, but that debate would still hang on the assumption that promoting the CTS-V as a track-dominating sedan will make a difference in Cadillac’s fortunes. Let alone GM’s. Don’t get me wrong, as a game of corporate risk-tolerance chicken, GM clearly spooked its competitors out. Still, the argument could be made that the competition had more to lose and less to prove than Cadillac. That seems to have been the case with Jaguar.

I’m not sure I understand where the catty comments are coming from though. Jag were the only cats sticking their necks out for a race on the CTS-V’s home track (Hello Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Maserati, et al). With up to three entrants (Jack, Wes and Lawrence) running practice and hot laps in a single car, brake fade would be a concern in any stock sedan. Cadillac is bringing extra brakes and tires for their cars. In any case, Jack Baruth knows his brakes, and he’ll be sure to notice any weaknesses when he gets a turn with the XFR outside of this particular media spectacle.

I, for one, am glad that Jack will have the chance to take on Lutz in the same car. The car comparison angle to this event has always been overrated… what was this going to do for the model and brand that the CTS-V’s Nurburgring time didn’t? Let alone [shock, horror] a positive TTAC review? Now this is just a race between men… and we’re glad GM picked the best car it makes to host it in.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 57 comments
  • Chris Haak Chris Haak on Oct 28, 2009

    @Accords Why do you keep saying that the CTS-V looks nothing like the current (2008+) regular CTS? They share literally every body panel but the hood (with the V adding ground effects). The grille/bumper treatment is different, and GM said at the V's debut in Detroit that the grille is done differently to allow more airflow to the engine. Sounds like a performance-related reason to me. I own a 2008 CTS and like the car. If a Jaguar XF/SC was cheaper, I probably would have bought one of those instead, or maybe a 335i. But they're not. The CTS is a nice car and I haven't had any mechanical issues with the car in the 15 months I've owned it, and it's only needed one oil change and one tire rotation so far. Prior to this, I owned a 2004 Accord for four years from new. I found the Accord to be similarly reliable, with less performance and fewer comfort features, but better seats.

  • Accs Accs on Oct 29, 2009

    ChrisHaak: Here is the CTS V http://www.cargurus.com/images/2009/09/13/02/30/2010_cadillac_cts-v_6_2l_sfi-pic-4305524949876864103.jpeg Here is the CTS http://montgomeryherald.autoconx.com/photos/420/501105420_1_B.jpg Both for 2010. They look.. completely different. Included is also the wikipedia listing the CTS V as a take off of the FIRST GEN CADDY CTS!

  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Next