RealityCheck
Member
I recently replaced my 2013 Ecoboost Flex with a 2011 CTS-V sedan (automatic). I loved the Flex, but was looking for something a little more interesting to drive as an alternative to my SHO. As most SHO owners already know, the SHO is like Rodney Dangerfield - it just doesn't get any respect. I suspect most people simply can't get past the "Taurus" badge. The CTS-V, on the other hand, seems to maybe get a little too much respect.
My SHO is a 2014 PP car with 9,100 miles on the odometer. I purchased it new in November of 2013 for $39K (MSRP $47K) . I'm running an Unleashed 93 octane tune, PPE catted downpipes, H&R springs, and 245/40-19 Bridgestone RE-11 tires. The Bridgestones are 2"smaller in diameter than the OEM tires, which effectively results in a much more aggressive final drive ratio. In addition, the tires lower the car another inch beyond the H&Rs. It would be hard to overstate the effect these tires had on the car - steering response is much sharper and traction is incredible. Between the H&Rs and the tires, handing is substantially more aggressive than stock. The higher numerical final drive ratio due to the smaller tire diameter makes acceleration noticeably stronger.
The CTS-V is stock with slightly more than 35,000 miles on the odometer. I paid $38,500 for it. It's bone stock, right down to the OEM spec Michelin PS2s, which are simply not in the same league as the Bridgestones (but better than the SHO's OEM Goodyear F1s).
Initial impressions:
The Taurus is a much bigger car than the CTS. The SHO is much roomier inside and has a huge trunk. The bigger interior results in more and bigger storage compartments throughout the cabin. Anyone who claims the Taurus is cramped hasn't driven one.
Interior materials are slightly better in the V, but the SHO has lower NVH levels, particularly above 30 mph.
Driving the V requires constant diligence to prevent wheelspin. The SHO can be driven ridiculously fast by just about anyone - it makes heroes out of zeros.
Other than the wonders of AWD, the V and the SHO are remarkably similar when driven at 8 tenths. Only at higher speeds (80mph+) does the V's extra power become obvious. The Caddy will simply walk away from the SHO at high speed. In normal or aggressive street driving, I'll take the SHO. I will be installing RE-11s on the CTS shortly, which I think will allow me to access more of the car's performance.
The SHO has more luxury/tech features than the CTS, but I really like the ability to shift the Caddy manually via the center console shifter (as opposed to the SHO's paddles).
I was afraid I wouldn't want to drive the SHO much after experiencing the Cadillac, but that simply hasn't happened. In fact, I'm more convinced than ever that the SHO is a spectacular bargain and one of the best kept secrets in the world of cars.
My SHO is a 2014 PP car with 9,100 miles on the odometer. I purchased it new in November of 2013 for $39K (MSRP $47K) . I'm running an Unleashed 93 octane tune, PPE catted downpipes, H&R springs, and 245/40-19 Bridgestone RE-11 tires. The Bridgestones are 2"smaller in diameter than the OEM tires, which effectively results in a much more aggressive final drive ratio. In addition, the tires lower the car another inch beyond the H&Rs. It would be hard to overstate the effect these tires had on the car - steering response is much sharper and traction is incredible. Between the H&Rs and the tires, handing is substantially more aggressive than stock. The higher numerical final drive ratio due to the smaller tire diameter makes acceleration noticeably stronger.
The CTS-V is stock with slightly more than 35,000 miles on the odometer. I paid $38,500 for it. It's bone stock, right down to the OEM spec Michelin PS2s, which are simply not in the same league as the Bridgestones (but better than the SHO's OEM Goodyear F1s).
Initial impressions:
The Taurus is a much bigger car than the CTS. The SHO is much roomier inside and has a huge trunk. The bigger interior results in more and bigger storage compartments throughout the cabin. Anyone who claims the Taurus is cramped hasn't driven one.
Interior materials are slightly better in the V, but the SHO has lower NVH levels, particularly above 30 mph.
Driving the V requires constant diligence to prevent wheelspin. The SHO can be driven ridiculously fast by just about anyone - it makes heroes out of zeros.
Other than the wonders of AWD, the V and the SHO are remarkably similar when driven at 8 tenths. Only at higher speeds (80mph+) does the V's extra power become obvious. The Caddy will simply walk away from the SHO at high speed. In normal or aggressive street driving, I'll take the SHO. I will be installing RE-11s on the CTS shortly, which I think will allow me to access more of the car's performance.
The SHO has more luxury/tech features than the CTS, but I really like the ability to shift the Caddy manually via the center console shifter (as opposed to the SHO's paddles).
I was afraid I wouldn't want to drive the SHO much after experiencing the Cadillac, but that simply hasn't happened. In fact, I'm more convinced than ever that the SHO is a spectacular bargain and one of the best kept secrets in the world of cars.
