Video: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V around the Nurburgring in 7:59.32

The folks behind the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V’s 7:59.32 lap time around the Nurburgring just got back from Germany and, as promised, have posted a video of Executive of GM Performance John Heinricy’s sub-8 minute lap of the Nordschleife. The time supposedly makes the new CTS-V the fastest production sedan to lap the famous track.

Re-emphasizing the fact that no performance or operational modifications were made to the 550-hp CTS-V, Cadillac’s Drivers’ Log says that the car used at Nurburgring is the same that Cadillac will offer in production.

“We had a chance to mount some cameras on the car and had the benefit of a beautiful day. Enjoy”

Click through for the video...
Read Article

AlexTx - 5/15/2008 12:52:31 PM

-2 Boost

That is actually unimpressive for a car with that hp.
The RS4 with only 420hp did it under 8 seconds with an Audi factory driver unofficially. Officially 8:04.
I was hoping for better times than this.

gsh23 - 5/15/2008 1:43:00 PM

-1 Boost

thats because this cadillac weighs 4200 lbs without driver.

85bmw745i - 5/15/2008 1:32:14 PM

-2 Boost

Yeah and they need a giant dinosaur v8 to do it. were too cheap to develop a light weight high power engine so we just throw cubic inches, like 7.0 litres for the vette or over 8 litres for the v10 in the viper. never the less this is good for cadillac. I knew they would pull something with this car. at the rate they have been improving it was only a matter of time, and that time came sooner than most expected. Now if we can get rid of the damn union we can actually afford to keep making better cars.

jasaero - 5/15/2008 1:49:19 PM

+4 Boost

Actually the Dinosaur 7.0L LS7 is actually about the same weight or slightly ligher than the 6.3L engine in the AMG cars and is probably a good bit lighter than the BMW 5.0L V10. Not to mention it takes up less room under the hood than either while making similar power, more torque, and guzzling LESS gas. Now the Supercharged versions are heavier because of the supercharger and intercooling equipment of course, but BMW is going to turbos which will add similar weight to match these Supercharged LS? engines. The LS? engines are by no means dinosaurs. Probably have as many or more advanced technologies used in their manufacturing and Engineer as any German or Japanese engine.

jasaero - 5/15/2008 1:50:24 PM

+2 Boost

Engineer should be engineering in the last post. Sorry.

Bmw8ter - 5/15/2008 1:55:33 PM

+1 Boost

Charging a low discplacement, high compression engine doesn't make sense on a daily driver car.

jasaero - 5/15/2008 1:58:11 PM

+1 Boost

BMW isn't revising the compression ratio of their turboed engines?? I think they are. That is pretty standard practice for OEM charged engines.

KillBot - 5/15/2008 3:04:34 PM

+2 Boost

Ummmm, AMG uses a 6.2 liter engine too

85bmw745i - 5/15/2008 5:02:42 PM

+1 Boost

Damn you guys got me. I forgot about the AMG. Okay My bad. the caddy is still no doubt a badass car. It's about time we beat the Germans. As much as I love BMW's for once we are legitimately not only competing but beating. At leats cadillac won't need any gimmiky advertisement, as their quality is further than I thought I'd ever see it go.

85bmw745i - 5/15/2008 5:04:31 PM

+1 Boost

Is the V10 really heavier than the LS? I know the v8 in the m3 is lighter than the 6 cyl it replaces. I dunno if it's lighter than the M5's v8, because if it is BMW needs to lose some weight

jasaero - 5/15/2008 6:53:44 PM

+2 Boost

The V10 in the M5 weighs aroud ~530lbs(239kg) and is supposed to be about the same weight as the V8 from the last gen M5. The LS7 weighs ~460lbs. Here is a link to the weight of the M5 V10

http://www.mbmw.com/M5 V10 Engine.htm

Can't find a link on the LS7, but pretty sure most current LS engines are under 500lbs. Pretty sure the LS7 is right in the ~450-460lb range. It's basically the same weight as the MB 6.2L engine. I am still totally amazed at how light that MB engine is as it is really tought to build OHC engines small and light.

85bmw745i - 5/15/2008 7:32:56 PM

+1 Boost

I had no idea the V10 weighd more than the ls7. But now that I think about it it does make sense. It is a multi valve, tow more pistons and a larger crank etc. compared with the ls7, which doesn't have nowhere near half the components the V10 in the M5 has. I'm so used to the old iron block, aluminum head v8's being so heavy I didn't think it would weigh less. it doeas make sense though. Thanks for the info jasaero

jasaero - 5/15/2008 11:25:25 PM

+2 Boost

Yep. Also the fact that the cam is in the block in an area that is basically empty space on a dohc engine instead of multiple cams in the heads also means that the OHV V design is MUCH, MUCH more space efficient. This is why the LS? engines can fit in something like a Solstice or other small car. Chances are it would be near impossible to fit an ///M or AMG engine in a car like the Solstice. The ///M and AMG engines are still amazing, don't get me wrong, but have their own inferiorities.

KillBot - 5/15/2008 3:08:09 PM

+3 Boost

Kicking A$$ and taking names.

The End

AlexTx - 5/16/2008 1:20:50 AM

+2 Boost

Yeah that is why the M5 and the E63 got their A$$ handed by the RS6, but you stay in your own little BMW world...

ZBL1414 - 5/16/2008 7:32:10 AM

-1 Boost

MB's days as a tier one brand are numbered. Lexus has it beat as a luxury crusier; BMW easily outperforms it, and several makers have passed it in terms of quality. That 3-pointed star won't carry MB forever.

MBKing - 5/16/2008 4:29:38 AM

+2 Boost

The driver missed the apex a few times. Put me behind the wheel of that monster, I guarantee I can do it faster than he did.

993Turbo - 5/16/2008 8:21:25 AM

+1 Boost

Wow! That's faster than a GT-R!

I95SPEEDINGTICKETS - 5/18/2008 2:08:16 AM

+1 Boost

No it is not you TWAT