2011 Cadillac CTS Coupe Will Come Standard With Six-Speed Manual

Overall, I think the car is pretty awesome; however, the car appears more a hatch than a coupe...yet the upward slant on the rear is very awkward.

I'm not a fan at all of the styling but if I close my eyes the package itself is appealing (RWD/6MT FTW!). Will this thing weigh less than the sedan, meaning possibly better acceleration than the sedan's tepid performance?

A 6-speed manual is great news.
I wonder if manual transmissions may make some kind of comeback? Everyone is so worried that they'll become extinct soon that just the mention of the availability of one makes headlines. (Buick?)
And I am NOT complaining!

@bimmerjay,

Tepid? The CTS-V Sedan is far from tepid. In fact, on paper and on the track, it's one of the best performing luxury sedans in the world.

Where does it say that it will get the CTS-V's engine? It says "only the direct-injected 3.6-liter V6" is available.
Maybe eventually...

"Tepid? The CTS-V Sedan is far from tepid. In fact, on paper and on the track, it's one of the best performing luxury sedans in the world."

It is not getting the V engine.

@ pat, doug: The CTS-V coupe is coming to Detroit. http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/11/2011-cadillac-cts-v-coupe-will-debut-in-detroit.html -- E. Riches

@erin,

Thanks for the link. I was basing my comment on the article above which talks about the 3.6L DI V6.

The prospect of a CTS-V coupe is quite thrilling.

absolutely hideous. how on earth this car has received so much praise I have no idea. look at the front end! It's the face of an over-caffeinated grandpa whose had too much botox.

"Will this thing weigh less than the sedan, meaning possibly better acceleration than the sedan's tepid performance?"

The sedan's performance is hardly tepid, its just not as fast as the turbocharged 3 series or 5 series. 0-60 is between 6-6.3 secs for the sedan which is about as fast as the E350 or base model Jaguar XF. It's not class leading, but hardly slow.

the actual press release clearly mentions the V coupe. on autoblog they actually provide you with the text from the manufacturers. I wouldn't take the entries on Straightline as all emcompassing.

0-60 in 6.5 secs and the quarter in 14.9 seconds at 94.6 mph (Edmunds IL Full Test) is lukewarm at best and slow at worst for a car with an advertised 304 hp, compared to its similarly-engined competitors.

bimmer:

Lets us a shred of common sense if we can. The 3.6L is NOT turbocharged. The acceleration of the CTS is in line with the E350, GS350 M35 and Acura TL- all cars with NA V6 engines and similar weights. The CTS cannot keep up with a turbocharged 535 because it only makes 273 lb ft of torque. The IS350 is considerably faster because it so small and light.

CTS 0-60 times have been anywhere from 5.8secs to 6.5 secs- naturally IL got the slowest times. Most times have been 6-6.3 secs. And don't say "advertised hp" as if GM is making it up. It's SAE certified so it makes at least 304hp. When you combine a NA V6 with 4000lbs you get a 0-60 in the low sixes. If the car had a turbo and more torque it would be faster.

If you compare the CTS to the 5 series based on price the 3.6L model lines up with the 528, not the 535. The CTS can certainly outrun a similarly priced 5 series. E class is even more expensive and is no faster than the Cadillac. The 335 can be had for the same money and is faster but its a smaller class of car.

The comparisons to, say, a BMW 335i coupe will be inevitable. Sure, the 335 will be quicker to accelerate, but it's also a bit smaller (~5 inches wheelbase) and weighs less. Still, it's premature to assume the price and performance will be similar to the sedan.

Whats with tiny rear windows these days. I hate not being able to see crap behind me. Good looking car though. I just need this to be at least under 6 secs. I just don't know of a +40k coupe that doesn't go under 6 secs (perhaps the 2.0 engine A5, not sure). Still this is much better then the SRX.
One thing i don't understand about Cadillac. Why is the CTS wagen slower then the Q5? The Q5 should be heavier (awd vs. rwd and its bigger) and less powerful (280 vs. 300). I was just looking and as they price about the same I was just wondering why the loss of acceleration.

The Base A5 will gets to 60 in 6.2 (likely 6.5 when IL tests it) per C&D. If you want to win drag races this coupe is not the best choice. Same applies to the sedan. That isn't the same as saying its slow.

The CTS's 3.6 also has 20% more displacement than BMW's N54.

Excerpted from IL's comments on the acceleration:

"There's so much tire grip that the V6's meager 273 pound-feet of torque can't generate any useful wheelspin in our acceleration tests, and a flat spot in the engine's torque curve between 3,000 rpm and 4,000 rpm further compromises our results. This car's 6.5-second run to 60 mph is 0.6 second slower than Cadillac's claim.

Our run through the quarter-mile in 14.9 seconds at 94.6 mph also seems slower than what we'd expect from a 304-hp engine."

The CTS's competitors that you mentioned (E350, TL, blah blah who cares) also do not match its power output, so they should be slower anyway. The bottom line is that the CTS advertises more power but is no faster. This coupe needs to do better.

bimmer:

When you add turbos you can give up displacement. GM's 2L engine makes only 40 less hp than the N54 in spite of being 33% smaller.

"he CTS's competitors that you mentioned (E350, TL, blah blah who cares) also do not match its power output, so they should be slower anyway. The bottom line is that the CTS advertises more power but is no faster. This coupe needs to do better."

The E350 makes considerably less hp but the TL makes 305hp. Where the heck did you get the idea that it can't match the output? The GS350 and M35 make 303hp- a whopping 1hp less than the similarly sized CTS. Most of the cars I mentioned get to 60 in the low to mid 6 sec range. I know you feel obligated to try and argue with me but what you are saying doesn't even make sense. Facts are facts. BMW's twin turbo powered cars are faster than EVERYTHING, not just the CTS. Stop trying to single out the Cadillac as if its the only laggard.

Bimmer- you aren't making any sense. It doesn't matter how much horsepower an engine makes if it's tied to a HEAVY vehicle. Re-read your physics books. The CTS is a heavy dog, period. It's heavier than a 535 while having less torque- not to mention the even lighter 335i. The output of the 3.6L DI V6 cannot be disputed, it's SAE certified. And what does displacement have to do with anything? It's overall output that counts. If the CTS had 300lbs-ft from 1800rpm like the 335 or 535 its acceleration would be quicker. Less torque available at a higher RPM in a heavier vehicle will net slower acceleration. This is pretty simple stuff so I'm not sure from where your logic stems.

The styling on this car is pretty out there and chunky but it is distinctive. The first generation G35 coupe was the best example on how to style a coupe of this size but now it's been replaced by the extruded jellybean that is the current G37 coupe. Anyway, I definitely would buy this CTS coupe over the sedan but I could understand why someone would. Caddy should've thrown in an optional L3S 428hp V8 to fit in between the 3.6L and the 6.2L s/c V.

I like the sedan better and the Sportwagon the best.

It is very distinctive, I will have to see one in a different color to know if I like it......I do not like how the tailights wrap up over the rear fenders....too much plastic. Maybe on a red car it will not look so strange to me. I bet less than 10% will be ordered with the manual trans. Small, sporty or economical cars are ok with MTs but I find big powerful cars more pleasing with autoboxes. I know, I know and I have driven MTs for the majority of time I have been driving (27 years) but maybe it is age catching up with me but I just dont want to use the effort anymore. I drove my friends 2004 Bullit home the other day in 6 miles of stop and go traffic and my left leg broke off at the kneecap and flipped into the back seat by the time I got home. Driving a Miata around on the weekends is fine, but for everyday use I think I will just take a nice 5 or six speed auto.

"It doesn't matter how much horsepower an engine makes if it's tied to a HEAVY vehicle."

Yes, exactly.

"It's overall output that counts."

And yes.

The CTS needs to weigh less and put its power down better/across a broader RPM range.

bodyblue, I hope you were able to have your leg reattached.

I think what this car needs is a midline engine, so the 3.6 can be the base version, the LS3 the mid-range one, and then the CTS-V can get the SC V8. It would be identical in the lineup as to how BMW does it with their TT 6 and 8, and it should make the car more appealing -those that want more power than the 6 but think the SC V8 is far too much, can opt for the NA V8-.

If GM launched a lighter version of the CTS, even with the 3.0 OR the 3.6, it could be a better mover. An alteration like this cold be done with a coupe, if they chose...

Enter the Cadillac ATS.

"And yes.

The CTS needs to weigh less and put its power down better/across a broader RPM range."

It doesn't have a problem putting power down, it has a NA V6. It's that simple. A turbo engine in any given car will propel that car faster than a NA engine of similar hp. WHy? Turbo engines generate MORE torque at LOWER rpms. There is nothing wrong with the 3.6L in the CTS or the 3.5L in the GS360. When MB finally adds DI to the E350 it still wont be as fast as the 535i because it will not be able to match the torque of the turbo I-6. What you are basically saying is that the CTS needs a turbo just to be considered adequate. That isn't the case because only two of its competitors have forced induction 6 cylinder engines.

"Yes, exactly."

The new 5 series is an inch longer than the CTS and weighs almost as much. If the CTS is "too heavy" than the same can be said for the 2010 5 series.

Bimmer- you are still missing the point. The CTS will never "weigh less". All cars are getting heavier. In order to make the car weight less, they would have to use a bunch of aluminum and that would push the price up to BMW type levels. It's not going to happen. The 3.6L is an excellent engine- I've sampled both the port and DI versions. It has plently of low end torque- more so than the Toyota, Infiniti, Acura and MB V6s of similar displacement. If you have seen the torque curve you would know this. No six cylinder engine in the 300hp club has as much low end pull as the turbo BMW six. Audi is the only one making a forced induction six with similar torque but it's brand new so I haven't heard much about it.

I like BMW's engines, they are the best in terms of output in their classes but unfortunately the price to get that performance is an utter rip off. The engine is only one aspect of a vehicle. It doesn't matter anyway- even if the CTS was faster than a 335/535 people would still criticize the car.

Chavis and 1487: You remind me of horses that have blinders on their eyes. Good luck with that.

Correct me bimmerjay if I misinterpreted your point.

Bimmer said if the coupe weighs less than the Sedan it could bump performance up due to weight loss. Even with the same motor. Duh. Its possible, not probable, but so what. IT DOESN"T HAVE TO DO WITH BMW. Its comparing the 3.6DI engine to the 3.6DI engine in two different variations of the CTS.

"The CTS will never "weigh less". All cars are getting heavier."

Thats like saying when you make more money you spend more. Its not a fact of life its a choice. The 08 WRX sedan weighed less than the previous gen model yet has more interior room.

inlinesix - yes, pretty much. I was not making any comparison to BMW. The 3.6 DI has been criticized for having a flat spot in the power band between 3-4k RPM and the corpulence of the sedan conspires to reduce straight-line performance. The coupe needs to perform better, so hopefully a combination of lighter weight, the 6MT, and possible engine improvements will accomplish that.

Hey, what's with all this bimmmer-hijacking of every CTS post? (Hah, jk)

The styling is provacative, and that's positive. Styling has been fallen down quite a bit with BMW and Mercedes, I think it's safe to say. Cadillac is making a solid effort, and with some success in my opinion. And offering a manual as standard? Come on! That's the spirit!

Audi, on the other hand, is knocking it out of the park with styling. I'm almost forgiving the past reliability issues and forgetting every Audi and VW owner who warned me, because I'm jonesing for an Audi S4 or S5 something fierce! What do you people say - any good reliability data for Audi to justify a current model?