Jump to content

Faster than an M5: First Cadillac CTS-V performance test published


Recommended Posts

ctsv-tiresmoke.jpg

Likely the only view that M5 drivers will have of the CTS-V



It's been over 60 years since the Americans have so thoroughly trounced the Germans, but Inside Line has the numbers to prove it. The Edmunds news service had a chance to take the new Cadillac CTS-V (which we're driving in upstart New York as we speak) and its supercharged V8 for a spin around GM's Milford proving grounds and brought along its testing gear. The resulting bombardment ought to have the Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come.

The CTS-V ran the quarter-mile in a scant 12.5 seconds, besting the 12.7 it takes for either the BMW M5 or the Mercedes E63 AMG. Getting back to a standstill was another hit to the Bimmer and the Benz, with the Caddy stopping from 60-0 mph in 109 feet – five feet less than it takes the M5 and six shorter than the AMG. And if you're thinking that brakes and power are easy to upgrade and that the Cadillac couldn't possibly best the Germans on the handling course, think again: the CTS-V ran the slalom at 71.1 mph, while the M5 and E63 ran it in 68.5 and 65 mph respectively. Deutschland über alles indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Mercedes & BMW will be stuck

eating SOURkraut for a while. :P

While Lexus, Acura & even Infiniti are stuck

sitting in the corner of the recreation room,

watching re-runs of "Matlock" ...drooling on

their laps & bumbling like old man wearing

extra absorbent depends.

So, PUSHRODS are dead eh...?

Sounds a lot like "Dewie defeats Truman" to me!

Edited by Sixty8panther
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the CTS-V is marginally faster than the two German competitors, within the margin of error for a normal driver, and somehow it has those Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come!

Congratulations to Cadillac for making a car that performs on par with the Germans, likely at a cheaper price. But nobody is blowing away any of the others as the article seems to suggest. Reality check, people who want a BMW will still buy the M5.

IMHO, the M5 is much nicer looking. More elegant and classy. How come nobody is griping about the CTS's hood bulge?

So, PUSHRODS are dead eh...?

It took GM 6.2 liters and a supercharger to best the output of the 5.0 liter naturally-aspirated BMW engine.

I expect it to drop by another half a second when other magazines test it. Edmunds seem to have a nag of producing astonishingly higher times compared to Road and Track or Car and Driver or heck even Motor Trend.

The M5 and AMG times also come from Edmunds. Perhaps they are lower on R&T (which usually does produce the quickest times) as well, I haven't checked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
careful, you'll get shouted down by the Rondel humpers in here for talk like that.

I love BMW and Mercedes, many new & classic

BMWs and MBs were depictedin the posters

that hung in my room back in my middle & high

school years (1989-1997) and I still love many

new BMWs and M-Benz products, esp. the M-

series Bimmers & CLK/CL hardtops from Daimler.

That being said it is FACT that as far as the

"bang-for-the-buck" performance-sedan

category goes this Cadillac kicks both their

rears into next tuesday.

Siegen:

Frankly I'm sick to DEATH of so many members here

who splice ATOMS except when a clear chasm

exists that is NOT in their favor or to their liking &

therefore it is negligable or irrelevant.

You can not agrue with those numbers. Period.

Edited by Sixty8panther
Link to post
Share on other sites
The M5 and AMG times also come from Edmunds. Perhaps they are lower on R&T (which usually does produce the quickest times) as well, I haven't checked.

I did not make comparisons of numbers for the three cars in my previous post. I am just saying it regarding the absolute test numbers for the CTS-V. Merc E-63 gets 4.1 s to 60 according to C&D. I expect the number to be 3.8-3.9 s for the CTS-V considering the power to weight ratio of the vehicle.

Edited by michaelv13
Link to post
Share on other sites
careful, you'll get shouted down by the Rondel humpers in here for talk like that.

I own an "almost" M3 with my 330i ZHP...and I like the compact size of it. The CTS from a spec sheet perspective (dimensions, weight, etc) matches up with the 5-Series, which is the rational comparison. The only people who seem to "get" this are either BMW 3-Series owners or Cadillac CTS owners -- the armchair critics seem to miss the point.

Hurry up with the alpha based Caddy to compete with the 3-Series. And give a less expensive version to Pontiac to replace the G6 to take on the BMW 3-Series CPO sales. With all the leasing cutbacks, odds are the luxury brands sales are going to diminish in the coming years...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I own an "almost" M3 with my 330i ZHP...and I like the compact size of it. The CTS from a spec sheet perspective (dimensions, weight, etc) matches up with the 5-Series, which is the rational comparison. The only people who seem to "get" this are either BMW 3-Series owners or Cadillac CTS owners -- the armchair critics seem to miss the point.

Hurry up with the alpha based Caddy to compete with the 3-Series. And give a less expensive version to Pontiac to replace the G6 to take on the BMW 3-Series CPO sales. With all the leasing cutbacks, odds are the luxury brands sales are going to diminish in the coming years...

I have a new found respect for you sir..... not that I didn't respect you before... but... oh well, you know what I mean.

A neighbor/friend had a 3-series <just moved to a new C-Class and gave his partner the 3er> and I really disliked the small interior. I was used to the interior space of my CTS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things to keep in mind here guys:

1) If you want to compare our 0-to-60mph number to others you have to use the one with the rollout included, in this case: 4.3 seconds.

2) These numbers were for the manual, Cadillac says the automatic is faster. They might be right.

Ed Hellwig

Senior Editor

Edmunds Inside Line

Link to post
Share on other sites
It took GM 6.2 liters and a supercharger to best the output of the 5.0 liter naturally-aspirated BMW engine.

Yep, and they did it with fewer cylinders (V8 vs. V10) and a smaller package overall (OHV vs. DOHC).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Siegen:

Frankly I'm sick to DEATH of so many members here

who splice ATOMS except when a clear chasm

exists that is NOT in their favor or to their liking &

therefore it is negligable or irrelevant.

You can not agrue with those numbers. Period.

I'm not the one splicing atoms here. I said that the difference is marginal, while Autoblog is making comments such as the one I have bolded above.

If I wanted to argue with those numbers, I could. The vehicles were not tested back to back; all three vehicles had their times sourced from different reviews. They may or may not have used the same instrumentation to test each vehicle, I'm not going to bother reading each article. That is irrelevant, and I don't want to argue numbers.

Oh good! Another horsepower per litre debate! :retard:

Nothing of the sort. What I said was merely in response to the "pushrods don't suck" comments. If GM made a 5.0L OHV pushrod V8 that developed 500 naturally aspirated horsepower, then we could all praise the smaller and cheaper OHV design and laugh at BMW for choosing the more expensive and complex OHC design.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, and they did it with fewer cylinders (V8 vs. V10) and a smaller package overall (OHV vs. DOHC).

On 'Regular' gas, too.

BUT OH KNOWS! ITZ ONLEE FIEV POINT WUN SUROUND SOUND! GEE EMM UR SPEEKERS IS BAD I TELL IT ALL UR HARD DRIVEZ HAZ JUST FIRTY GIGABITES OF SPAIS!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daymn.... that's impressive performance. Cool. But, how does it compare to the competition in the most important category of all--cupholder design? :)

I'd love to have one...but since I don't have 3C- job title (what will the price be--$75k?), I'll have to be content with a regular 3.6 DI CTS.

If I'm not mistaken, the CTS-v engine is similar to the Z06 engine? I'd love to see Chevy build a Camaro Z06 and a Camaro ZR1...those engines are too great to leave just to the Corvette, IMHO.....a Suburban ZR1 would rock also....

Edited by moltar
Link to post
Share on other sites
If GM made a 5.0L OHV pushrod V8 that developed 500 naturally aspirated horsepower, then we could all praise the smaller and cheaper OHV design and laugh at BMW for choosing the more expensive and complex OHC design.

Just because it had more displacement doesn't mean it isn't smaller, you should know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So the CTS-V is marginally faster than the two German competitors, within the margin of error for a normal driver, and somehow it has those Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come!

Congratulations to Cadillac for making a car that performs on par with the Germans, likely at a cheaper price. But nobody is blowing away any of the others as the article seems to suggest. Reality check, people who want a BMW will still buy the M5.

IMHO, the M5 is much nicer looking. More elegant and classy. How come nobody is griping about the CTS's hood bulge?

It took GM 6.2 liters and a supercharger to best the output of the 5.0 liter naturally-aspirated BMW engine.

The M5 and AMG times also come from Edmunds. Perhaps they are lower on R&T (which usually does produce the quickest times) as well, I haven't checked.

OH NO!!!!

Someone's pushing the import apologist button again!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Daymn.... that's impressive performance. Cool. But, how does it compare to the competition in the most important category of all--cupholder design? :)

I'd love to have one...but since I don't have 3C- job title (what will the price be--$75k?), I'll have to be content with a regular 3.6 DI CTS.

If I'm not mistaken, the CTS-v engine is similar to the Z06 engine? I'd love to see Chevy build a Camaro Z06 and a Camaro ZR1...those engines are too great to leave just to the Corvette, IMHO.....a Suburban ZR1 would rock also....

I think that was the plan with the Z/28 (Which has supposedly been cancelled now)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of splicing atoms,

the title of this thread should read:

QUICKER than the BMW M5. :)

faster = top speed

quick = 0-60, 1/4 mile run etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing of the sort. What I said was merely in response to the "pushrods don't suck" comments. If GM made a 5.0L OHV pushrod V8 that developed 500 naturally aspirated horsepower, then we could all praise the smaller and cheaper OHV design and laugh at BMW for choosing the more expensive and complex OHC design.

I would bet a lot of money that the GM engine is a lot cheaper than the BMW engine as it stands. If the CTS-V cost $80k like the M5, maybe we'd see some sort of V10 based on the Cien engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would bet a lot of money that the GM engine is a lot cheaper than the BMW engine as it stands. If the CTS-V cost $80k like the M5, maybe we'd see some sort of V10 based on the Cien engine.

I bet the CTS-v will be $75k or so, what with the regular CTS topping out at around $50k.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet the CTS-v will be $75k or so, what with the regular CTS topping out at around $50k.

Well, not according to this article, which says the following:

Cadillac told us that the CTS-V would start production in August as a 2009 model, at a price from the high $50,000s to the low $60,000s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/automobi...w/14-cts-v.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would bet a lot of money that the GM engine is a lot cheaper than the BMW engine as it stands. If the CTS-V cost $80k like the M5, maybe we'd see some sort of V10 based on the Cien engine.

It's almost a certainty that the BMW V10 costs a lot more.

Just because it had more displacement doesn't mean it isn't smaller, you should know that.

I think you misinterpreted my post. Regardless, I'm not comparing external dimensions.

OH NO!!!!

Someone's pushing the import apologist button again!

Is that what you call everyone who tries to use reason to get a point across? Wait, why am I even responding to this? :huh:

Back to my original point. I am responding to Autoblog's comment that the CTS-V leaves the "Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come". Obviously this is a bit of sensationalism, but it is still a ridiculous notion. Then in response to "why pushrods don't suck" or the general sentiment of this comparison somehow making it seem as if pushrods are as good as the OHC design of the competition; The pushrod V8 defeated the high technology more complex and expensive OHV V10. But it required more displacement and forced induction to do so. What if we compared a 5.0L pushrod N/A GM V8 to a 6.2L supercharged BMW V10 (if one existed that is)? I guarantee everyone here would be complaining that it isn't a fair comparison.

But it's ok the way it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's almost a certainty that the BMW V10 costs a lot more.

I think you misinterpreted my post. Regardless, I'm not comparing external dimensions.

Is that what you call everyone who tries to use reason to get a point across? Wait, why am I even responding to this? :huh:

Back to my original point. I am responding to Autoblog's comment that the CTS-V leaves the "Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come". Obviously this is a bit of sensationalism, but it is still a ridiculous notion. Then in response to "why pushrods don't suck" or the general sentiment of this comparison somehow making it seem as if pushrods are as good as the OHC design of the competition; The pushrod V8 defeated the high technology more complex and expensive OHV V10. But it required more displacement and forced induction to do so. What if we compared a 5.0L pushrod N/A GM V8 to a 6.2L supercharged BMW V10 (if one existed that is)? I guarantee everyone here would be complaining that it isn't a fair comparison.

But it's ok the way it is.

GM makes a 6.2L crate engine that makes 515HP N/A.

I'm guessing that if GM wanted to, it could make a 5.0L V8 with 500+HP. It would probably cost as much as the V10 in the M5, but they could do it. What would be the point though? ~500HP for ~$75k or 550+HP for $60k, it's not too hard of a decision, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GM makes a 6.2L crate engine that makes 515HP N/A.

I'm guessing that if GM wanted to, it could make a 5.0L V8 with 500+HP. It would probably cost as much as the V10 in the M5, but they could do it. What would be the point though? ~500HP for ~$75k or 550+HP for $60k, it's not too hard of a decision, IMO.

It would be quite a feet if they made a 100HP/liter naturally-aspirated pushrod engine, and I don't think they could do it without sacrificing driveability in the low end or incorporating some sort of variable lift mechanism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
About time the CTS started getting compared to a BMW 5-Series instead of a 3-Series.

Well it is a good thing they did, the M3 does the slalom at 72.9 mph and 0-60 in 4.2 seconds (C63 AMG does it in 3.9), it would have beaten the CTS-V. M3 and CTS-V will likely cost the same, so do people that want performance buy the faster BMW or Mercedes (which have badge/snob appeal too) or the Cadillac.

Good numbers for the CTS-V especially in the handling department for how heavy it is. 0-60 in the 4.3 to 4.6 range is good, but the STS-V can do it in 4.6 seconds also, and that car has been a non-factor in the performance car arena.

Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, because in 2 years there will be a 570 hp E63, and the new M5 is going to be lighter, and who knows how much power if they twin turbo the V10. In 2011 will Cadillac still want to compare a 2 year old CTS-V to an all new M5?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, because in 2 years there will be a 570 hp E63, and the new M5 is going to be lighter, and who knows how much power if they twin turbo the V10. In 2011 will Cadillac still want to compare a 2 year old CTS-V to an all new M5?

I've read that the next M5 will have a twin turbo V8 instead of the V10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to my original point. I am responding to Autoblog's comment that the CTS-V leaves the "Germans thoroughly embarrassed and rebuilding for decades to come". Obviously this is a bit of sensationalism, but it is still a ridiculous notion. Then in response to "why pushrods don't suck" or the general sentiment of this comparison somehow making it seem as if pushrods are as good as the OHC design of the competition; The pushrod V8 defeated the high technology more complex and expensive OHV V10. But it required more displacement and forced induction to do so. What if we compared a 5.0L pushrod N/A GM V8 to a 6.2L supercharged BMW V10 (if one existed that is)? I guarantee everyone here would be complaining that it isn't a fair comparison.

But it's ok the way it is.

I agree that it is the sensationalization that you are commenting on. And honestly despite being commendable performance, CTS-V does not knock the panties off the Germans, as the article claims. CTS-V betters the Germans no doubt and in someways realigns the benchmark. Except for the Corvette, which GM car in the recent past has done that? But hey NOW is time that GM does need this kind of trumpets from somebody in the press to give them some crumpets they desperately need :unitedstates:.

However, .2 seconds in a quartermile is a lot in the actual racing arena, granted we should look at the way it handles too if you are going to consider the car's overall racing prowess. But given that the stopping distance, slalom (parameter showing cornering prowess), lateral acceleration, and straightline speed of the Caddy are better than Bimmer and Merc, Caddy as a whole will beat the Germans hands down. In circuits like VIR where all the cars qualities are tested, I think Caddy will trounce.

It would be quite a feet if they made a 100HP/liter naturally-aspirated pushrod engine, and I don't think they could do it without sacrificing driveability in the low end or incorporating some sort of variable lift mechanism.

It is difficult to obtain that. The closest is the C6R with 600 odd hp with racing fuel in a 427 block. You have to understand that HP/liter is just a number which in broad terms is nothing but bragging right. If the engines with different displacements produce identical powers, identical torque, identical fuel economy in the applications, and now even identical level of refinement, while the higher displacement engine costs about a third to make compared to the smaller engine, which one will you choose?

A BMW V-10 costs about $35K (Source BMW parts) and the 6.3 AMG is about $33K (car and driver 2007) while the LS2 is roughly $9K (GM performance parts and Car and Driver) assuming the supercharger, extra big wet sump, and other nannies you are looking at another $2-2.5 K at most. No wonders Caddy will stick with that push rod mill.

I think a DI push rod will help push that 100hp/l if DI makes into small block application (Dwightlooi can confirm that for us).

Edited by 79VetteZ06
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm waiting for the predictable Comment: But the seats in the M5 adjust 95 different ways...

Impressive to say the least.

20 ways, and the side bolsters move in turns to prevent the driver from sliding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of engines and usage, AMG is definitely spread the 63 V8 far and wide.... in at least 12 distinct models, I believe ---3 sedans (C,E,S), 3 coupes (CLK, CLS, CL), 3 SUVs (ML,GL,G), 1 CUV (R-class), 2 roadsters (SLK, SL). No A, B, Sprinter or Vito AMG 63s though...:) And I've read the GLK isn't getting one either.

It is impressive--no other automaker has a dozen V8 high performance models, across a wide span of sizes and body styles.

Edited by moltar
Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, "<<

Did Cadillac 'call out the Germans', or was it AutoBlog ?

Autoblog...it's inevitable this car will get compared with the Teutonic 3 + the Lexus F. With the Germans, it will no doubt be compared against both the compact (M3,RS4,C63) and midsize (M5,RS6,E63) because of the price/size positioning....

Speaking of press hyperbole--the lead article on Inside Line calls the CTS-v an 'M5 Killer'... Road And Track has a CTS-v vs M5 article posted also.

Edited by moltar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Right- then it's moronic to say, 'Cadillac is taking a risk by calling out the Germans' when Cadillac did no such thing, no?

Right...no doubt Cadillac has the Germans in their sights, but it's the press proclaiming it an M5 'killer'...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, because in 2 years there will be a 570 hp E63, and the new M5 is going to be lighter, and who knows how much power if they twin turbo the V10. In 2011 will Cadillac still want to compare a 2 year old CTS-V to an all new M5?

Yes, because they'll stick the 640HP LS9 in the CTS-V and call it a day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it is a good thing they did, the M3 does the slalom at 72.9 mph and 0-60 in 4.2 seconds (C63 AMG does it in 3.9), it would have beaten the CTS-V. M3 and CTS-V will likely cost the same, so do people that want performance buy the faster BMW or Mercedes (which have badge/snob appeal too) or the Cadillac.

Good numbers for the CTS-V especially in the handling department for how heavy it is. 0-60 in the 4.3 to 4.6 range is good, but the STS-V can do it in 4.6 seconds also, and that car has been a non-factor in the performance car arena.

Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, because in 2 years there will be a 570 hp E63, and the new M5 is going to be lighter, and who knows how much power if they twin turbo the V10. In 2011 will Cadillac still want to compare a 2 year old CTS-V to an all new M5?

I already posted my thoughts in an earlier post as to why I think it's logical to compare the CTS-V against the M5 instead of the M3. However the CTS-V did beat both the M3 and M5 in fastest lap time around the 'Ring. Link

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"Cadillac is taking a risky by calling out the Germans, "<<

Did Cadillac 'call out the Germans', or was it AutoBlog ?

Well Bob Lutz said the CTS-V would "suck the doors off an M5" the CTS-V posted marginally better times than an M5 that has been out a while M5 without a limiter can do 204 mph, that is impressive. I'd prefer Bob Lutz stop making claims, because often he just over states or the bean counters step in, and what he claimed doesn't get delivered.

Bottom line is American car fans of big growly engines will like this car. Those that had a 300C, Corvette, older V-series, Charger SRT-8, etc will probably want one. People that spend $90,000 on Euro-exotics won't be interested, they buy BMW or Mercedes for prestige, and often don't consider American cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then in response to "why pushrods don't suck" or the general sentiment of this comparison somehow making it seem as if pushrods are as good as the OHC design of the competition; The pushrod V8 defeated the high technology more complex and expensive OHV V10. But it required more displacement and forced induction to do so. What if we compared a 5.0L pushrod N/A GM V8 to a 6.2L supercharged BMW V10 (if one existed that is)? I guarantee everyone here would be complaining that it isn't a fair comparison.

It's not a realistic comparison either. One thing that really pisses me off is when people get into the hp/liter discussion like that is somehow relevant to anything. I could write a whole dissertation on this but for now I'll keep it short. Here goes:

- A 6.2L DOHC V10 (let alone a V8) with or without the supercharger would not realistically work in a BMW because it would be too damn big to fit in anything BMW makes today, probably including their SUV's.

- HP/liter is only important for a OHC engine! Why? Because they are displacement limited. You have to keep the block small to keep the giant cylinder heads from making the engine too big to fit in the average vehicle.

- If an OHV V8 engine of say 6.2 L can make 430 hp with a lot of area under the curve, 400 ft-lbs of torque, be very refined, rev to 6.5K rpm and get 17/25 gas mileage, explain to me why an DOHC 5.0 L V8 making 420 hp with less area under the curve, less than 400 ft-lbs of torque, slightly more refinement, the same rev limit and the same (or sometimes worse) fuel economy be any better?!? Ahh, that's right, it has 4 cams and weighs more! It must be better. Plus, that timing belt is quieter than a chain. ;) Thank goodness many automakers have gotten away from the damn timing belts on interference engines.

So, let me ask you a simple question since you are the one I have seen discussing hp/liter the most recently. What exactly is it about a DOHC engine that makes it superior to a well designed pushrod engine? Put it in engineering terms for me. Don't just use the meaningless and overused hp/liter argument. Trust me when I say if an OHC engine could get the job done with only 2 valves per cylinder, they would only have 2 valves per cylinder due to cost and weight. They only have 4 valves per cylinder for one reason: they need to be more efficient to produce the same hp from a smaller displacement due them being so damn big. Obviously that isn't a big factor with a 4 cylinder (or pretty much any other inline engine) so that is one engine where it definitely makes sense for DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder. Lets keep this argument to V8's, or really any V automobile engine.

Edited by 2QuickZ's
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Bob Lutz said the CTS-V would "suck the doors off an M5" the CTS-V posted marginally better times than an M5 that has been out a while M5 without a limiter can do 204 mph, that is impressive. I'd prefer Bob Lutz stop making claims, because often he just over states or the bean counters step in, and what he claimed doesn't get delivered.

Bottom line is American car fans of big growly engines will like this car. Those that had a 300C, Corvette, older V-series, Charger SRT-8, etc will probably want one. People that spend $90,000 on Euro-exotics won't be interested, they buy BMW or Mercedes for prestige, and often don't consider American cars.

1) As many have said, fractions of seconds are impressive on a track. They often equal car lengths.

2) Go find an M5 without a governor and we'll talk. How much you can mod a car means absolutely NOTHING.

3) We have car enthusiasts, we have people with money, and we have car enthusiasts with money. Look at that list and tell me which there are more of in the market. Yep, it's the ones with money. AKA the badge snobs. Who don't give a crap about what's under the hood anyway just as long as it has the roundel, 3-point star, four circles, or the L within the oval.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet:

CTS-V uses a V8 and a supercharger

but

makes more power than the M5 with 2 extra cylinders

It doesn't matter if it only beat the Germans by a little, the point it is is faster, stops better, handles better and laps the Ring quicker than the Germans. No one has been able to touch them in the uber performance market until now: not Acura, not Lexus, not Cadillac. Now Cadillac has released a car that beats the Germans, including the benchmark BMW in every performance measure. Most impressive indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

blah blah blah blah blah...endless bench racing and pointless blather, nitpicking, etc.

Why not celebrate the CTS-v for what it is...a great American performance car that is competitive in the big leagues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Siegen:

Here's what it boils down to:

GM has once AGAIN made a car with incredible bang/$.

I am not inconvenienced by however liters are under

the hood... I'd be okay with a CTS-V displacing 99 liters

and getting only 30-HP-per-liter so long as the fuel

economy stayed in the teens, and weather the car's V8

or V10 has 4 cams or ONE cam is all the same to most

buyers, it certainly does NOT cost them MORE for the

more durrable & reliable pushrod variant, while a

forced-induction motor does wear out quicker the type

of consumer who will be buying either the CTS-V or the

BMW M5 does not care about that much at all beyond

(maybe) MSRP and maintenance...

Any way you slice it, whatever way you want to spin it

GM has consistantly offered awesome value (bang/$)

on desirable sports cars, sport sedans & muscle cars.

Now what I want to know, please do not take offense to

this, but I'm honestly asking:

Why is it that you post here as often as most GM fans?

Seldom if ever do you wax poetic on anything other

than the Acura NSX or some other (IMHO) overpriced

& overrated Honda product...

What GM vehicle inspires (or inspired) you to post

here originally? I do not mind you playing devil's

advocate but sometimes it seems you just hang out

to reign on everyone's parade....?

Again, I'm, not trying to be a d!ck, just asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GM does not usually claim better than they can deliver and all the GM number that I have seen say 3.9 0-60 and 12.0 1/4 mile.

Yes, very true.

Unlike Ford, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia & many others that

have gotten caught with their pants down when an

owner has not been able to verify performance or HP.

Remember the Ford Mustang Cobra debacle in 1999.

Pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Siegen:

Here's what it boils down to:

GM has once AGAIN made a car with incredible bang/$.

I am not inconvenienced by however liters are under

the hood... I'd be okay with a CTS-V displacing 99 liters

and getting only 30-HP-per-liter so long as the fuel

economy stayed in the teens, and weather the car's V8

or V10 has 4 cams or ONE cam is all the same to most

buyers, it certainly does NOT cost them MORE for the

more durrable & reliable pushrod variant, while a

forced-induction motor does wear out quicker the type

of consumer who will be buying either the CTS-V or the

BMW M5 does not care about that much at all beyond

(maybe) MSRP and maintenance...

Any way you slice it, whatever way you want to spin it

GM has consistantly offered awesome value (bang/$)

on desirable sports cars, sport sedans & muscle cars.

Now what I want to know, please do not take offense to

this, but I'm honestly asking:

Why is it that you post here as often as most GM fans?

Seldom if ever do you wax poetic on anything other

than the Acura NSX or some other (IMHO) overpriced

& overrated Honda product...

What GM vehicle inspires (or inspired) you to post

here originally? I do not mind you playing devil's

advocate but sometimes it seems you just hang out

to reign on everyone's parade....?

Again, I'm, not trying to be a d!ck, just asking.

The CTS-V is a good car, I haven't said anything to the contrary. I prefer the styling of the M5, but I have already congratulated Cadillac in my first post for making a car that competes performance-wise at a lower cost, which is exactly what this car does. If it ends up really beating them performance-wise, then that's even better.

That aside, many of my posts are misinterpreted, they are taken too literally or my meaning is bent. This isn't aimed at you but at everyone, and I am either failing to get my point across or nobody is trying to understand it enough. Also people like to toot their horn and jump at any opportunity to do so. I'm going to try and put this as partially as I can. Here we have two cars that use different methods to achieve the same result. One uses more displacement and forced induction, while the other uses a more complex valvetrain and engine design. Being a technical person it is obvious which one I prefer. While one may be a less expensive route to achieve the result now, it certainly doesn't advance engine technology for the future. That is all. I was never trying to argue HP/liter but perhaps my posts came off sounding that way.

But to answer your question. This is the place I like to go for automotive news in general. I play the devil's advocate often because I like to balance the opinion. I have been very critical of many Honda products, but I save most of that for vtec.net, since there really is no point to post it here as Honda certainly doesn't read posts here. :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... I can understand your point. :)

One thing I'd like to throw in there is that GM has advanced

engine technoloogy more than anyone else, in the past few

decades they've had their ups and downs, but overall, they

have in the past made fantastic contributions to the field.

Honda has too, esp. given their relatively short existance &

some of their cutting edge stuff, but in the real world Honda

cars do nothing for me, they turn me off 99 times out of a

hundred, save for the S2000, NSX & to a smaller degree the

2nd gen. CRX and a few Preludes/Integras... they seem to

be going downhill if anything, as far as production cars,

which is where it counts!

There's a small chance I'll own a Honda generator, ATV or

maybe even a motorcycle, the pancake-6 powered Valkrie

used to catch my eye as a teenager, but their cars by &

large do not exite me at all, esp. the new stuff: :yuck:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Bob Lutz said the CTS-V would "suck the doors off an M5" the CTS-V posted marginally better times than an M5 that has been out a while M5 without a limiter can do 204 mph, that is impressive. I'd prefer Bob Lutz stop making claims, because often he just over states or the bean counters step in, and what he claimed doesn't get delivered.

Bottom line is American car fans of big growly engines will like this car. Those that had a 300C, Corvette, older V-series, Charger SRT-8, etc will probably want one. People that spend $90,000 on Euro-exotics won't be interested, they buy BMW or Mercedes for prestige, and often don't consider American cars.

That's fine...

Us 'american car fanboys' will have fun making them look like fools at the track AND on the street.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the type

of consumer who will be buying either the CTS-V or the

BMW M5 does not care about that much at all beyond

(maybe) MSRP and maintenance...

Any way you slice it, whatever way you want to spin it

GM has consistantly offered awesome value (bang/$)

on desirable sports cars, sport sedans & muscle cars.

M5 buyers only care about MSRP and operating cost? That sounds like a Hyundai or Camry buyer. People that buy an M5 or similar car are going to care about the engine, the small details and the badge. They dropped the pushrod from the Malibu because it wasn't refined enough to compete with the Camry and Accord, yet they kept for Cadillac to go against Mercedes and BMW, hmm.

I agree, they built a lot of performance per dollar, in the way Chrysler has a lot of performance per dollar in the 300 SRT-8. 425 hp and same cost as a 304 hp CTS, The SRT-8 can crush a CTS DI in performance, but the Chrysler isn't a better car, somewhere they cheaped out on materials, the badge is less prestigious, reliability isn't as good, etc.

If the CTS-V were truely better than the M5 or E63 or RS6, Cadillac would charge $90,000 for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They dropped the pushrod from the Malibu because it wasn't refined enough to compete with the Camry and Accord, yet they kept for Cadillac to go against Mercedes and BMW, hmm.

wasn't the same pushrod dummy

Link to post
Share on other sites
wasn't the same pushrod dummy

But DOHC came is inherently superior to OHV. Lexus, Mercedes, Ferrari, Porsche, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Maserati, Infiniti, Bugatti and Rolls-Royce aren't using DOHC by accident. Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge use pushrods, which group makes more desirable cars

Link to post
Share on other sites
But DOHC came is inherently superior to OHV. Lexus, Mercedes, Ferrari, Porsche, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Maserati, Infiniti, Bugatti and Rolls-Royce aren't using DOHC by accident. Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge use pushrods, which group makes more desirable cars

Not going to turn this into a CIB v. OHC debate, but no, one is not "inherently superior" to the other...... as this CTS-V demonstrates.

Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge use both pushrod and OHC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5 buyers only care about MSRP and operating cost? That sounds like a Hyundai or Camry buyer. People that buy an M5 or similar car are going to care about the engine, the small details and the badge. They dropped the pushrod from the Malibu because it wasn't refined enough to compete with the Camry and Accord, yet they kept for Cadillac to go against Mercedes and BMW, hmm.

I agree, they built a lot of performance per dollar, in the way Chrysler has a lot of performance per dollar in the 300 SRT-8. 425 hp and same cost as a 304 hp CTS, The SRT-8 can crush a CTS DI in performance, but the Chrysler isn't a better car, somewhere they cheaped out on materials, the badge is less prestigious, reliability isn't as good, etc.

If the CTS-V were truely better than the M5 or E63 or RS6, Cadillac would charge $90,000 for it.

Let's play "find the failures in this reply!" :fryingpan:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's play "find the failures in this reply!" :fryingpan:

SRT-8 crushes the CTS in performance? Is SMK only counting straight line numbers now? Interesting how he manipulates his position to suit his end goal of slamming Cadillac.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M5 buyers only care about MSRP and operating cost? That sounds like a Hyundai or Camry buyer. People that buy an M5 or similar car are going to care about the engine, the small details and the badge. They dropped the pushrod from the Malibu because it wasn't refined enough to compete with the Camry and Accord, yet they kept for Cadillac to go against Mercedes and BMW, hmm.

I agree, they built a lot of performance per dollar, in the way Chrysler has a lot of performance per dollar in the 300 SRT-8. 425 hp and same cost as a 304 hp CTS, The SRT-8 can crush a CTS DI in performance, but the Chrysler isn't a better car, somewhere they cheaped out on materials, the badge is less prestigious, reliability isn't as good, etc.

If the CTS-V were truely better than the M5 or E63 or RS6, Cadillac would charge $90,000 for it.

there is one sad truth in the above post. Cadillac can not charge $90,000 for the CTS-V, or the STS-V or XLR-V for that matter. The brand just does not resonate with the buyers at this point in time and does not support the same price premium as the other brands in this segment. It will take continued focus from GM to stay the course, and invest heavily in order to change the perception of buyers. it is not an overnight process.

of course, the abscence of a true 3 Series competitor to draw in the younger clientele, and a larger true 7/S/A series competitor to aspire to doesn't help matters.

(I'd take the 2009 CTS-V over the M5 and E63 any day of the week.)

Edited by 97regalGS
Link to post
Share on other sites
there is one sad truth in the above post. Cadillac can not charge $90,000 for the CTS-V, or the STS-V or XLR-V for that matter. The brand just does not resonate with the buyers at this point in time and does not support the same price premium as the other brands in this segment. It will take continued focus from GM to stay the course, and invest heavily in order to change the perception of buyers. it is not an overnight process.

of course, the abscence of a true 3 Series competitor to draw in the younger clientele, and a larger true 7/S/A series competitor to aspire to doesn't help matters.

(I'd take the 2009 CTS-V over the M5 and E63 any day of the week.)

I don't disagree with you, but much of BMW and M-B pricing is just the plane ticket from Bavaria and Stuttgart... not necessarily that the cars may actually be worth the plane ticket.

Oh yeah, they charge 100 grand for the XLR-V, remember?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly, there has still been no explanation from anybody as to why DOHC is inherently better than CIB. I guess the answer is, "Because it just is." Or maybe it's "Because the Europeans and Japanese are doing it so it must be." :lol::rolleyes: I'm still waiting for something other than the meaningless HP/liter argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

XLR's are really poor sellers, and an 06 V-series can be had for $60,000, and 06 STS-V runs can be had low to mid $40s. The XLR-V isn't worth $100k, it has less performance than a Corvette Z51 package and the interior is only marginally better, yet it costs twice as much.

Cadillac knows they can't $85,000 for a CTS-V, so clearly they had to cut costs somewhere, where the BMW and Mercedes didn't. I think what is interesting about the super performance sedans, is RS6 is turbo, CTS-V and the AMG cars are supercharged, Bentley Flying Spur is turbo (different class) but the M5 runs with any of them with a naturally aspirated engine. So what happens if they put 2 turbos on the M5?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oddly, there has still been no explanation from anybody as to why DOHC is inherently better than CIB. I guess the answer is, "Because it just is." Or maybe it's "Because the Europeans and Japanese are doing it so it must be." :lol::rolleyes: I'm still waiting for something other than the meaningless HP/liter argument.

Rev higher, smoother, less vibration, sounds better, more hp for displacement, smaller displacement usually means better fuel economy, etc.

There is a reason the base CTS doesn't have a 3800 series III supercharged, and has a DOHC engine. The CTS is a good product, but it doesn't match up with the 5-series and E-class which cost $20,000 more (and no other $34-50k car does either). And one product doesn't make Cadillac, I get the impression that