Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Drew Dowdell

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

118 posts in this topic

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.

0

Share this post


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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


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

careful, you'll get shouted down by the Rondel humpers in here for talk like that.

0

Share this post


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.

0

Share this post


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
0

Share this post


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
0

Share this post


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.

0

Share this post


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...

0

Share this post


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.

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

0

Share this post


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.

0

Share this post


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

0

Share this post


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).

0

Share this post


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.

0

Share this post


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!

0

Share this post


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
0

Share this post


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.

0

Share this post


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!

0

Share this post


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)

0

Share this post


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...

0

Share this post


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.

0

Share this post


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.

0

Share this post


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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0