By on December 22, 2014

003-2016-cadillac-cts-v-1

There will be no manual transmission for the 2016 Cadillac CTS-V, but that’s ok. If you’d like a coupe, or a stick shift, there’s always the ATS-V.

On the other hand, the CTS-V is the only place to get a supercharged V8. In this case, it’s a variant of the Corvette Z06’s LT4 engine, making 640 horsepower and 630 lb-ft of torque.

Backed by an 8-speed automatic transmission, the CTS-V also features a limited slip differential, magnetic ride shocks and launch control. Recaro sport seats are optional.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

74 Comments on “2016 Cadillac CTS-V Ditches Manual Gearbox, Multiple Bodystyles...”


  • avatar
    danio3834

    I think a Hellcat Charger and this car would make a nice His/Hers combo for my wife and I.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I suppose the wagon goes away entirely? I have decided I really like those. Especially with AWD. Destined to be a very rare car later, and already fairly rare now.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      Yeah, the wagon lost the sales battle to the CUV. And, yes, it’s rare. I’ve seen a grand total of two black CTS wagons on the road (besides mine) over the model became available in 2010.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I liked the wagon too. The 3.0 and 3.6 were available with AWD, but the V model was RWD only.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      But they are terrible at being wagons. I must admit that I hate most things about the last gen CTS; buffalo butt coupe, terrible interior, not comfortable, pointless wagon, worse than Lincoln depreciation (even V-series), looked dated the day it came out, etc. I like this new CTS though.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        It did look dated in sedan form, I agree. Something about the front isn’t right. The first ones back in the early 00s looked dated very quickly too. I think they were over-publicized so everyone got sick of looking at them (on every TV show and movie).

        The bad interior is a truth too. It’s what kept me away from a late STS-4 3.6.

        I liked the coupe styling though, very distinct!

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          They are things I can overlook in a used car for the most part. The problem is, there are many used vehicles I like better than the CTS for similar money. I am more comfortable in the STS than CTS when it comes to Sigma platform vehicles. I’d even take a 2012 MKZ/MKS over a non-V 2012 CTS.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I’d take just about ANY Lincoln sedan over ANY Cadillac sedan, and I’m not exactly a fan of Lincoln.

            At least the Lincolns retain some degree of comfort and American luxury, and didn’t throw baby out with bath water chasing BMWs around some NurburgerRingThing.

            #WhatISaCadillac?

            #TellUsMelodyLee

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Handsome “V” Cadillac, thumbs-up. You don’t have to get the spoiler (see other pics)

  • avatar
    Detroit-X

    Over-styled to the point of ugliness. Rebated and leased to death to prop up sales. A revolving door of executives who….

    Ahh, forget it.

  • avatar
    energetik9

    I’m generally a big fan of this segment, but never really been in love with this model. I just always remember seeing these on the road with all black treatment and blacked out windows. Always thought that took something away from the car and cheapened it a bit. Cadillac doesn’t seem to be too popular where I live, so not sure how many I’ll actually see in the wild. I am very interested in seeing some true reviews on this one and would love to drive it.

    I am very surprised at how subtle the styling is (beyond the hard Cadillac lines). Cadillac generally seems pretty over the top with many of its styling cues. I wonder if most people will recognize or understand what this car is.

  • avatar

    At $40,000 this car would sell like hot cakes.

    • 0 avatar
      sproc

      Well, yes, but that’s like saying I’d be first in line for a $30k M4.

      More realistically, I wouldn’t be surprised if they *could* offer it in the 60s and make it a heck of a bargain. It’s this silly insistence that the brand is cheapened if their pricing isn’t on par with their German equivalents across the range that pisses me off more than any other Cadillac shortcomings. At the same time, GM loves touting what an amazing performance value the Corvette is (as they should). Silly.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Mark it at 60, have GM employees buy it discounted down to 48k new, and then used car buyers can get it after 3 years with 38,000 miles on it for 25k.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Honestly at 48 those insiders will have a nice thing to resell for a while unless supply exceeds used demand. Low price on MY14 Chevy SS is 34,2 with 12K, high 38,2 with 421 miles. Typical GM depreciation is a minimum 30% on GM cars usually approaching 40% in the first model year (i.e. ATS). Loaded 3800 Buicks used to be a steal back in the day for this reason.

    • 0 avatar
      SayMyName

      Imagine that… a GM product priced at what it’s worth.

  • avatar
    theupperonepercent

    The Hellcat Charger and Challenger seem like way better deals to me.

    You already know this car is gonna push $90,000.

    As for styling: It looks good, but I feel Cadillac’s stealth theme gets dated fast and because they are bigger and blockier than they are low and swoopy, what should be a “poor man’s Aventador” feels like a regular car with an overpowered engine.

    If Cadillac wants to be a true luxury brand they need to swing for the fences.

    Bring back the Cien.
    Build the Ciel.
    Build the Elmiraj.

    And for God’s sakes, the brand engineering has got to stop.

    • 0 avatar
      Mr. Orange

      Brand engineering. What’s that?

    • 0 avatar

      First of all, the Hellcats are for a different kind of buyer. With GM now aiming for the Germans, it wouldn’t do to price this car significantly lower than the M5 and E63 AMG. The goal isn’t to attract the More Horsepower For Your Buck customer.

      Second, you mean”badge engineering”, which is to literally take a car and sell it under multiple brands, having changed the badge and little else. The one car where that’s remotely the case is the Escalade, and even then, the latest iteration has so many improvements versus even the Yukon Denali that it’s really a body-shell cousin of the other GM full-sizers…not a clone.

      • 0 avatar
        energetik9

        No, pretty sure he means “brand engineering”. It’s been discussed on this site and others.

        http://fortune.com/2014/09/23/Cadillac-new-York/

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “First of all, the Hellcats are for a different kind of buyer.”

        It doesn’t matter who Cadillac is aiming for or what they think this car is supposed to compete with. Any buyer looking for a high performance large sedan who can afford the CTS-V can afford a Hellcat Charger which offers a similar package and performance for I’m guessing about 20k less. There will be comparisons.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        The new Cadillacs are pieces of excrement in terms of build quality, reliability & durability, brah.

        I realize some may claim this isn’t true, but it objectively is.

        I predict Cadillac reliability/durability ratings will be bringing up the rear in the vincinity of JLR soon (it’s already begun, actually – the ATS & CTS are both very trouble prone).

        You have some weird pro-Cadillac bias and a pro-pseudo luxury brand bias, in general.

        Hyundai builds a superior vehicle in every way compared to Cadillac of today, brah.

        • 0 avatar

          I love how when someone else says something about Cadillac it’s an opinion, but when DeadWeight says something about a Cadillac it’s a fact, objectively.

          Listen, we get it, you’re the Anti-Norm for Cadillac. You despise them, you think they are crap, you think the brand should die or whatever.

          My experience has not been yours. I drove an ATS 2.0T over a week and 2000+ kms and I liked it. It had problems, but generally I felt it was a well-done (CUE and some controls aside), well-put together car that didn’t *quite* come off as deserving the price tag Cadillac’s site indicated my example would cost. That’s my opinion. I haven’t been traipsing around to every vaguely Cadillac-related post to say it because its not that important nor that useful after stating it more than say, 3 times on the internet.

          Now please, put down the axe. We get it.

  • avatar
    Mr. Orange

    I love it when their are American cars with way to much power and that can do 200mph. I know a stretch of road I would love to test that out on and see how close I could get to it.

    This car is always so striking when I see. The more so because the two cities I find myself in I rarely see these. I mostly see the XTS and SRX.

  • avatar
    vent-L-8

    Anyone else sad that all these Detroit Auto Show premires are coming out before the actual auto show?

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    If Cadillac was serious about being perceived as upmarket, the V-badgers would be their only models.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      So by your logic BMW should just sell M cars and Mercedes only AMG variants? That’s a a great strategy for profit reduction.

      • 0 avatar
        CarnotCycle

        “So by your logic BMW should just sell M cars and Mercedes only AMG variants? That’s a a great strategy for profit reduction.”

        Nope. See, BMW sells just BMW’s. Benz just sells Benzes. ‘AMG’ on a Benz is ‘SS’ on a Chevy, a performance package. The CLA travesty is MB diluting their brand for lack of a crappy one to increase volume – such to say they are emulating GM’s Cadillac faux pas, but starting from the top instead of the bottom.

        GM is managing three brands that sell cars of some kind; and has been mentioned often around here a lot of times those three brands are selling basically the same car. The V-series Cadillacs are actually different than their GM stablemates with better technology and premium engines – you know, the ‘luxury’ stuff. That’s all the Cadillac brand should sell, if GM wants it to be ‘upmarket’ as they claim.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Less [options] for more [money]!

    Seriously though the fact Sigma CTS is still being built and sold today as new does not inspire confidence in the Alpha platform. Shouldn’t Alpha be able to handle a V8 already and not for MY16? Wouldn’t that have been a nice way to introduce the platform, on a low volume niche car and work out the kinks?

    • 0 avatar

      What are you talking about? The new CTS *does* use the Alpha platform. And Alpha could definitely handle a V8; it’s just that V8’s are rapidly being supplanted by twin-turbo V6 engines in all but the most expensive cars. The only reason that the Sigma platform soldiers on is to underpin the CTS coupe, which hasn’t yet been redesigned. It has nothing to do with a lack of capability on the part of the Alpha platform.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The MY14 CTS-V listed on Cadillac.com is still Sigma. Wikipedia implies it will live on as an MY15.

        “The second generation CTS-V is based on the new GM Sigma II platform. The rear-wheel-drive platform is the basis for the 2008 to present Cadillac CTS base model with which the CTS-V shares most of the body work. ”

        http://www.cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-sedan.html

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_CTS-V

        “The only reason that the Sigma platform soldiers on is to underpin the CTS coupe, which hasn’t yet been redesigned.”

        Given there is an ATS coupe it most likely will not continue.

        “it’s just that V8’s are rapidly being supplanted by twin-turbo V6 engines in all but the most expensive cars.”

        This is because many OEMs are not developing V8s for car use, GM on the other hand has one heck of a V8. My guess is Alpha went live in ATS because it was already in development as a Pontiac and it was ready. But because the platform was never intended for use as a Cadillac, it needed time to be reworked for V8 use by Cadillac and Chevrolet for Camaro. Why else would Cadillac run Sigma through CY2014 and possibly through most of CY2015 for the CTS-V only? I think its quite embarrassing actually that GM was not ready to continue use of its halo product in the new whiz bang platform on time.

        I predict the CTS-V will be the MY92 Cadillac 4.9 Seville/Eldo of the 21st century. The MY93+ Northstar models are long in the junkyard but the MY92 still used the venerable 4.9 which actually worked and thus still hang around to some extent. Long after the Alphas are in the crusher the CTS-V will remain if only because it should still run without major issue.

        • 0 avatar
          Mr. Orange

          With the CTS-V all Cadillac has to do is to continue running one assembly line. Not that difficult I surmise. And this is the last year for the sigma. As in calendar year 2014, it was reported earlier this year that during the summer Cadillac would produce the last 500 CTS-V coupes.

          How can you state that a platform that had been benchmarked using a E46 BMW not intended for what it turned into. A Cadillac to compete against BMWs. And then what the other iteration of what that platform became. Another car that’s designed to compete with BMWs but the bigger one.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            TTAC itself sheds light on what seems to have happened:

            “GMI starts with some history of the Apha program, it’s roots as “Kappa II” which Holden showed as the TT36 Torana Concept back in 2004, before development took a long hiatus. As originally intended, Alpha was to be lightweight and enthusiast-oriented, built only for four-cylinder engines. No wonder it went nowhere inside the RenCen until Cadillac adopted the platform as the basis of a forthcoming small sports sedan. But, as it turns out, Cadillac’s “wish list” for Alpha sowed the roots of its runaway complexity and bloat issues”

            “Initially Alpha was going to be a four-cylinder only chassis for small premium cars, so naturally development focused on optimizing the Alpha platform for four-cylinder mills in a very light package. Well, Cadillac’s first condition was that Alpha be re-engineered to package a naturally aspirated V-6 engine – and that was non-negotiable. This about-face on engine selection would become the first of at least two engine requests that led to a re-engineering of the Alpha chassis to accommodate the new requirements. More changes (read: more mass and cost) were required for the addition of all-wheel drive.

            What started out as a great handling, small RWD program, began it’s mission creep from being very focused to being all things to all people.”

            https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/05/mission-creep-weight-problems-compromise-haunt-gm-alpha-platform/

            The fact Alpha was not ready for launch with a V8 lends credence to these claims because it should have been if it had been originally engineered to be. GM took something which was intended a BMWesque niche car for C-P-C and mutated it into something it was never intended to be, a man for all seasons; a track intended stonkin’ V8 down to twisty turbo four pot on Bavarian roads. Based on my own experience in large corporations and knowledge of GM, I believe every word of Ed’s article.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I wrote a long reply but it was eaten, hopefully it shall return.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          The 2014/15 CTS-V won’t be a magical crusher avoiding Caddy any more than the 2016 CTS-V. The Alpha CTS is just plain better than the Sigma CTS. Without the supercharged V8, the Sigma CTS is dog$hit.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I have almost no exposure to the Alpha and only two experiences with the Sigma. Due to the standard V6 alone, I’ll roll with Sigma for the long term, I4 Cadillacs are sad (although a gun will be at my head to chose either).

            The 4.9s were not necessarily crusher proof either but they still run unlike their successors. The CTS-V will be no different, although it might become “crusher proof” due to its use of a powerful V8. The future is smaller and smaller engines and eventually walking for the proles after oil becomes scarce enough.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Well if we are talking V-series cars, none will have an I4 anyway.

            I share some of your disdain for the downsizing of displacements. However, I am a fan of twin turbo V6s.

            I don’t think you’ll be impressed with the Alpha platform anyway. I was expecting the CTS to be better than the new Mustang, but it isn’t close. The Mustang is special, the CTS is not. If Ford would stretch the Mustang and add two doors, it would shame Cadillac. Jim Fairley and Mark Fields hate GM. Hopefully the do it just to crap on that Transformery Caddy logo.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I speak in general. I wonder how much of the SRX’s model success is its standard V6? Again its clear the ATS in its basic form was originally intended for Pontiac, would there have been a I4 from Cadillac? Probably but it would have been (and should be) a niche offering in Cadillac with Pontiac picking up the sadder volume I4 models DW rails against. When the Camaro debuts will it also sport another Cruze grade four pot standard? Watch the kiddies and old Chevy men line up for that one /sarc.

            “Its just like the FR-S. Awesome!”
            “Whats an FR-S?”
            “Its a Scion.”
            “What’s a Scion?”

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I would expect GM to offer an I4, V6, and V8 on the Camaro. The 2.3T Mustang is more than acceptable.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            If I were a betting man, I would guess that the NA V6 is not long for this world in the Mustang. The 2.3T should be the base engine with the 2.7TT slotting in under the 5.0L.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            You and I are both old enough to remember the 2.3 HSC motors in the 80s Mustangs, this alone should have led Ford to naming it 2.4, 2.2, or just calling it “four”. I just can’t take it seriously as a standard motor based on name alone.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I was disappointed that they used the 2.3L engine without anything that said SVO.

          • 0 avatar
            pragmatic

            The Mustang never had the HSC (pushrod Tempo engine) it had the OHC 2.3. Same displacement different engine.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @pragmatic

            Thanks for the correction, it still sucked nonetheless.

  • avatar
    John R

    “On the other hand, the CTS-V is the only place to get a supercharged V8.”

    Within Cadillac.

  • avatar
    carm

    Cadillac is boring, as is this car. Time for GM to kill it and focus on Buick.

  • avatar
    madman2k

    I really like it. Wish I could own one someday.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Cadillac is blowing out otherwise unsellable AWD 48k new CTSs for 33k, no haggling required:

    http://www.herbchamberscadillaclynnfield.com/new/CADILLAC/2014-CADILLAC-CTS-Danvers-725ab4b40a0a00646b8974a33be6cd3f.htm

    Johann WILL NOT resort to discounting to move inventory.

    Just do a 33% across the board price cut off MSRP, Ms. Melody Lee!

    “My baby force up in a brand new Cadillac (grumpy because terrible gauges, coarse engine, poor reliability, CUE, unrefined ride quality, small back seat)…”

    • 0 avatar
      Mr. Orange

      No telling how long that car has been just sitting there on the lot. Possible even being made in 2013. Or being a base model with the only option being AWD which appears to be the case with that one.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Show me a brand new BMW, Audi, Lexus, MB, etc., selling for 31% off sticker no questions asked.

        No one but GM employees and suppliers on the massive discount friends & framily plan wants these cars.

        Let’s be honest.

        #WhatISaCadillac

  • avatar
    SayHiToYourMom

    Can anyone tell me why Cadillac doesn’t offer custom colors in paint and leather in these cars? I cross shopped the CTS-V when I bought my car (Audi S4) and the fact that there are effectively 4 paint colors and 2 leather colors in this car made it a no go for me. I hate the old man colors they offer, and you’d think if they want to compete with the Germans they would let you customize anything, as opposed to nothing. Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, and BMW will all let you paint your car ANY color you want, and it comes with their factory warranty.

    No American companies do this, but Dodge isn’t trying to compete with BMW – GM explicitly is.

  • avatar
    EAF

    Different strokes, different folks. I think this CTS is gorgeous and if I had the bank I would absolutely purchase this over any M or AMG badge. The only reason I would opt for the SRT Hellcat Challenger, over this CTS, is the 6 speed Tremec.

    Alas, I only have Civic Si money.

    • 0 avatar

      Ah, but the Civic Si isn’t a bad place to be. I don’t typically like high-powered small Japanese cars because they look juvenile, but I think the Civic Si (and the WRX for that matter) has grown up in its latest iteration.

    • 0 avatar
      energetik9

      A Civic Si, VW GTI, WRX, or similar offering can be just as much fun as this car. Trust me, these super high HP and high Torque cars can be a handful. High Torque cars can be problematic. You can overcome the traction of your drive tires very fast if you push too much torque. Don’t forget about the added weight too. A small, nimble car can be just as much fun and in some ways more engaging if you ask me.

      • 0 avatar
        EAF

        Definitely. I owned a Mustang 5.0 that I turbocharged. My current daily driver pushes 300 horsepower to the front wheels and weighs 2700 lbs. Point is, more power equates to more fun! The Si represents better balance, reliability, and better MPG. Certainly this CTS should be a riot!

      • 0 avatar
        hybridkiller

        I dated a woman for a while who had a ’09 CTS V. Was it a magnificent beast? Absolutely. Would I characterize it as a “fun” car? Not in a million years.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ajla: If people want an “SRT-style” 392 vehicle and they need to occasionally tow and they need a third...
  • JMII: Just as a warning: Hyundai’s “reservation” system for the new Santa Cruz truck-let has been a...
  • Dave M.: My guess is Toyota wanted to make it distinctive enough so everyone knows you’re saving the planet,...
  • SCE to AUX: I’m an admitted H/K fan, but I’m getting frustrated with their looong runup to products with...
  • stuki: The suspensions are completely different. Sound as well. The Durango is a genuinely cool car, if you’re...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber