03 vs 04
3.2 vs 3.5
220 hp vs 250hp
Luxury Sedan vs Luxury Sedan
Me and my friend run a couple rolls.
My small 3.2 v6 making roughly 220hp stock vs 3.5L HO V6 making 250-255hp
TIME TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS:
My only mistake here was mentioning 2005 when the car was indeed a 2004.
There was duct tape on the mirror. Unfortunately, my friend had BOTH mirrors knocked and snapped, and we couldn't find an 04 mirror to repair it, because 99-01 are the same, but this specific mirror is a dealer only part.
I know this guy personally, so he did know we were racing. He's in the military and has since left me the car tofix until he comes back from Germany.
The only thing wrong with this car is the Cat Converter and the mirrors. And trust me, that's not why it got dusted. So I don't want to argue on that one.
The real reason this 300m got dusted like this is because this transmission has an insane amount of loss by the time it hits the wheels, turning 250hp to roughly 160ish. The 300m runs 16s stock on an actual drag strip, where as the CTS runs 15.6 stock.
The first run, he was ready. On the second run, I didn't think he was ready, so I held out and waited. Regardless of how much "traffic" you see, please save the tears. Everyone with a car has done this at some point. My friend only had a week to enjoy himself before he was shipped back out for another 2 years, so blame me if I wanted to have fun during the small time I spent with a friend.
Before I had my CTS, I had a Blazer, which this 300m used to constantly smoke after about a block of keeping up.
So sorry to all the LHS Forum guys who have a tear in their eye over this. This is what would happen if a 300m stock lined up with a CTS stock. Just be glad I had the 3.2 V6, and not the 3.6 V6, or worse, the LS2 / LS6 CTS-V.
RoadTrip: Cadillac CTS VS. Lincoln MKS - Head-to-Head
In this episode of The Auto Channel's RoadTrip television series we put the
new 2009 Cadillac CTS up against the new 2009 Lincoln MKS.
Get all the pricing, specifications and comparison data at
2003 Chrysler 300M Special Start Up, Exhaust, and In Depth Tour
One of my all time favorite cars back when I had my 2000 300m in high
school, still one of my favorites, it was such a treat to finally check
this car out after all these years! In this video I give a full in depth
tour of the 2003 Chrysler 300M Special. I take viewers on a close look
through the interior and exterior of this car while showing details, over
viewing of features, and noting unique styling cues to the vehicle itself.
I also show the engine and the details of it, start it up and see how it
sounds under acceleration. A thorough tour/review of this car designed to
give others a greater overall appreciation of the vehicle.
2003 Cadillac CTS Start Up, Engine, and In Depth Tour
First off let me start off by apologizing for the wind noise every now and
then in the exterior portions, it was my only chance to get the 1st gen CTS
so I had to take it haha. In this video I give a full in depth tour of the
2003 Cadillac CTS. I take viewers on a close look through the interior and
exterior of this car while showing details, over viewing of features, and
noting unique styling cues to the vehicle itself. I also show the engine
and the details of it, start it up and see how it sounds under
acceleration. A thorough tour/review of this car designed to give others a
greater overall appreciation of the vehicle.
2014 Cadillac CTS 2.0T Review and Road Test
It's been decades since Cadillac produced the "Cadillac" of anything.
However, when car buffs dismiss the only American luxury brand left, they
fail to see Cadillac's march forward. 2002 brought the first RWD Cadillac
since the Fleetwoood. A year later the XLR roadster hit, followed in 2004
by Cadillac's first 5-Series fighter, the STS. Not everything was rosy. The
original CTS drove like a BMW but lacked charm and luxury fittings. The XLR
was based on a Corvette, which made for excellent road manners, but the
Northstar engine didn't have the oomph. The STS sounded like a good idea,
but the half-step CTS wasn't much smaller and ultimately shoppers weren't
interested in a bargain option. That brings us to the new ATS and CTS.
Ditching the "more car for less money" mantra, the ATS has been created to
fight the C/3/IS leaving the CTS free to battle the E/5/GS head-on. Can
Caddy's sensible new strategy deliver the one-two punch fans have hoped
for? I snagged a CTS 2.0T for a week to find out.
I found the outgoing CTS a little discordant, but 2014 brings an elegant
more aggressive refresh. GM's Art and Science theme has matured from
"cubism gone wrong" to shapes that flow and jibe with a larger grille and
softer creases. The 5-Series continues to go for elegant and restrained, I
find the XF and A6′s design a mixture of plain-Jane and snazzy headlamps
while the Infiniti Q5o and Lexus GS are going for flowing elegance.
The demur side profile continues with a simple character line to draw your
eye from front to rear. One thing you'll notice during that eye-movement is
the distinct RWD proportions that separate the CTS, E, 5, GS, XF and Q50
from the long-nosed Audi A6 and near-luxury FWD options. Out back the CTS'
rump is a bit less exciting but employs all the latest luxury cues from
hidden Exhaust tops to light piped
tail lamps. I was hoping Caddy's fins would be further resurrected, but
the "proto fins" on the XTS are absent. Pity. Obvious from every angle is
an attention to build quality absent from earlier generations with perfect
panel gaps and seams.
Unfortunately, the first thing you'll notice out on the road is the coarse
sound from under the hood. GM's 2.0L engine is no less refined than BMW or
Mercedes' four-bangers, but the difference is you can hear the engine in
the CTS. In fact, based on the overall quietness of the cabin (a
competitive 67 dB at 50 MPH), I can only conclude that Cadillac designed
the engine to be heard. I don't mind hearing the 3.6L V6, but most luxury
shoppers would prefer not to be reminded they chose the rational engine
every time they get on the freeway. On the bright side, because GM does not
offer start/stop tech, shoppers are spared the inelegant starts and stops
that characterize 528i city driving.
While I'm picking nits, the 6-speed found in the 2.0T and most 3.6 models
lacks the ratio spread and shift smoothness of the ZF 8-speed automatic
found in most of the competition.
The reason I label those flaws as mere nits is because of how the CTS
accomplishes every other task on the road. Acceleration to 60 happens a
4/10ths faster than an E350, a
half-second faster than the 528i,
a full second faster than a GS350,
and practically years ahead of the A6 2.0T. Part of this has to do with the
engine's superior torque curve and higher horsepower numbers, but
plenty has to do with curb weight. At 3,616 lbs, the CTS 2.oT is 200lbs
lighter than the BMW or Lexus, 400lbs lighter than an E350. The comparable
Audi A6 would be the front-wheel-drive 2.0T model with the CVT at 3,726. If
you think that's an unfair comparison, the 2.0T with Quattro is 3,900lbs
and does little to correct the A6′s front-heavy weight balance.