NINETY EIGHT REGENCY

Where Eagles Dare: Cadillac CTS-V Coupe vs Audi RS 5 vs BMW

52 posts in this topic

smk4565    351

Car and Driver did the same comparison, and also picked the M3 as the winner, although they rated the Cadillac over the Audi. The M3 had a decisive win, the CTS-V is nearly 700 lbs heavier than an M3, that is just too much. BMW built a sports car, Cadillac built a muscle car with a cheap interior. It is the same way Detroit has been building sorts cars for the past 40-50 years, take a regular car, jam a big engine in it, add some flare and extra chrome and call it a day. I think Car and Driver summed it up best, "you can take the Cadillac out of Michigan, but you can't take the Michigan out of Cadillac."

And on the Audi RS5, why is it so expensive? The A5 is a nice looking car, and putting the R8 engine in it sounds like a winning combination, but $90k is insane. That is paying $45k for the engine, brakes, and some trim pieces, total rip off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Dowdell    5,159

They rated the CTS-V as quite competitive in this segment. Why one would buy any of these 3 without row-your-own is beyond me though.

Driving one of these, if you think the transmission is laggy, then you're the idiot not shifting soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
balthazar    2,004

CTS : "truely competitive", "can hang with the other 2 on these switchbacks, and run with them on the Autobon".

Excellent- prime factors in this segment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smk4565    351

So competitive with an M3 that came out 3 years ago is what Cadillac strives for? "Almost as good as" should be GM's slogan and mission statement. Cadillac is in the position of needing to make the ATS-V all around better than the CTS-V, and even then, it could still fall short of the current M3. Plus, the ATS-V will be up against the next generation M3.

On the transmission, Car and Driver had the automatic and complained about the shifts saying the transmission was jerky. Powertrain was what hurt the CTS-V the most in their ratings. The M3 and Audi had a 10 in engine NVH, the CTS-V only a 7. The Germans both had a 9 in transmission the Cadillac, a 7. M3 had a 10 in fuel economy, the CTS-V another 7. Cadillac put a 6.2 liter muscle car engine into a 4260 lb coupe and expected it to perform like a 3600 lb, 8300 rpm, V8 BMW, that was a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Dowdell    5,159

So competitive with an M3 that came out 3 years ago is what Cadillac strives for? "Almost as good as" should be GM's slogan and mission statement. Cadillac is in the position of needing to make the ATS-V all around better than the CTS-V, and even then, it could still fall short of the current M3. Plus, the ATS-V will be up against the next generation M3.

On the transmission, Car and Driver had the automatic and complained about the shifts saying the transmission was jerky. Powertrain was what hurt the CTS-V the most in their ratings. The M3 and Audi had a 10 in engine NVH, the CTS-V only a 7. The Germans both had a 9 in transmission the Cadillac, a 7. M3 had a 10 in fuel economy, the CTS-V another 7. Cadillac put a 6.2 liter muscle car engine into a 4260 lb coupe and expected it to perform like a 3600 lb, 8300 rpm, V8 BMW, that was a mistake.

If the goal was to make a duplicate of the M3... yes. But again, Cadillac and BMW are not being compared by size class, just (barely) by price. The CTS-V coupe is actually 1 inch longer than the 6-series coupe. I want to see a performance comparison against that.

The coming ATS-V is what should be measured against the M3.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
balthazar    2,004

It's competitive with what's out NOW, because, you see, you cannot buy cars in the future (or the past, unfortunately). And the current CTS came out for 2008, or 3 years ago, too.

As for 'almost as good as', I believe my earlier quote of the review answered that quite succinctly.

>>"Cadillac put a 6.2 liter muscle car engine into a 4260 lb coupe and expected it to perform like a 3600 lb, 8300 rpm, V8 BMW, that was a mistake. "<<

The real issue here is, by the numbers, why doesn't the BMW outperform the CTS-V by a wide margin ?? It doesn't, and that's BMW's 'mistake'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smk4565    351

If the goal was to make a duplicate of the M3... yes. But again, Cadillac and BMW are not being compared by size class, just (barely) by price. The CTS-V coupe is actually 1 inch longer than the 6-series coupe. I want to see a performance comparison against that.

The coming ATS-V is what should be measured against the M3.

Cadillac and BMW are barely comparable at anything right now, CTS-V and M3 coupes are probably as close as they get in price, size, performance and features. Much of the rest of their lineups are are different spots in the market. Cadillac's lineup is closer to Lexus minus the LS460 and the dopey hybrid.

I agree on the ATS-V. My hope is the ATS-V is lighter, faster, better braking, better handling, more luxurious, better built and better looking than the CTS-V. But my prediction is the GM parts bin surfaces again, and the ATS-V suffers from the same compromises that limited the STS-V, XLR-V, and prevented the CTS-V coupe from defeating the M3.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Dowdell    5,159

Cadillac will never defeat BMW if the goal is always "be a BMW".

The M3 is smaller, has less power, has a less comfortable ride and more expensive while providing benefits that 1.) can only be noticed on the track, 2.) are beyond most owner's abilities, 3.) negated with the slightest driver error.*

*With the exception of the CTS-V automatic transmission which could be a legitimate gripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line--nothing Cadillac (or GM) ever has built or will ever build will satisfy SMK4565. He/it will always find a reason to bitch and moan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Dowdell    5,159

Bottom line--nothing Cadillac (or GM) ever has built or will ever build will satisfy SMK4565. He/it will always find a reason to bitch and moan.

unless Jaguar takes it and rebadges it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Intrepidation    848

A good review but really the CTS should be compared with the M5, E63 AMG, RS6, and XF-R. That the bigger car and run with the smaller cars says a lot about how well the CTS-V was engineered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PONTIAC06    22

The coming ATS-V is what should be measured against the M3.

A good review but really the CTS should be compared with the M5, E63 AMG, RS6, and XF-R. That the bigger car and run with the smaller cars says a lot about how well the CTS-V was engineered.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this. If the CTS sedan competes with the 5, why would the coupe not compete with the 6? The fact that Cadillac doesn't currently have something the size of the 3 doesn't automatically make the CTS a 3-series competitor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smk4565    351

CTS coupe doesn't have the equipment to compete with a 6-series coupe or an E550 coupe. CTS doesn't offer a convertible option either. Cadillac needs to kill the STS off already, and put the STS-V options list on the both the V6 CTS and the V-series. The CTS has to go up at least $10,000 in price to really go head on with the German midsizers. With the CTS-V they have to decide is it going to be more of a track car like an M3, or a grand tourer like an Jaguar XK or Maserati Gran Turismo.

A problem with GM's lineup is aside from the Corvette, where is the light weight (or even semi-light weight) sporty/fun to drive cars? The Camaro SS is 4,000 pounds, CTS-V coupe is 4260 lbs, even a V6 CTS coupe is near 2 tons. Every performance car they make weighs a ton, has a huge motor, so they have to add more weight to strengthen the chassis, then massive brakes to stop the weight, etc. The Cobalt SS is the only lighter weight performance car, and that is front drive and about to be discontinued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Z-06    493

CTS coupe doesn't have the equipment to compete with a 6-series coupe or an E550 coupe. CTS doesn't offer a convertible option either. Cadillac needs to kill the STS off already, and put the STS-V options list on the both the V6 CTS and the V-series. The CTS has to go up at least $10,000 in price to really go head on with the German midsizers. With the CTS-V they have to decide is it going to be more of a track car like an M3, or a grand tourer like an Jaguar XK or Maserati Gran Turismo.

A problem with GM's lineup is aside from the Corvette, where is the light weight (or even semi-light weight) sporty/fun to drive cars? The Camaro SS is 4,000 pounds, CTS-V coupe is 4260 lbs, even a V6 CTS coupe is near 2 tons. Every performance car they make weighs a ton, has a huge motor, so they have to add more weight to strengthen the chassis, then massive brakes to stop the weight, etc. The Cobalt SS is the only lighter weight performance car, and that is front drive and about to be discontinued.

Audi A6 3.2/3.0/4.2 - 3,858/ 4,123/ 4,213 lbs

BMW 5er 528/535/550 - 3,814/ 4,057, 4,343 lbs

E Classe 350/ 550/63 - 3,825/ 4,110/ 4,158 lbs

Jaguar 5.0/Supercharged/XFR - 3,924/ 4,306/ 4,306 lbs

Cadillac CTS 3.0/3.6/V - 3,860/ 3,909/ 4,222 lbs

Infiniti M37/M56 - 3,858/ 4,028 lbs

Lexus GS 350/450 - 3,795/ 3,945 lbs

Except for the Lexuses, which are slightly below the average and being long in tooth, CTS's weight compares favorably to weights of other competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smk4565    351

What equipment does Cadillac need? Kashmir headliner? 47 way power seats with reach around? I'm sure those add to the 0-60 or cornering ability nicely.

CTS doesn't have high beam headlights that sense oncoming traffic and switch to low beam, doesn't have blind spot alert, lane departure warning, radar guided cruise control, Alcantara headliner, upgraded leather, etc. The STS has that stuff available, I see on the Cadillac website the STS-V no longer exists, so maybe there is hope the CTS can get all that. Cadillac has some solid features, but they are reserved for the Escalade platium, former STS-V or STS Platinum. I don't think the CTS offers a heated steering wheel or head-up display either, CTS doesn't even have push button start. I think all of the above, minus the suede headliner and maybe head-up display should be on the V6 CTS, and all of the above on the CTS-V.

Even Lincoln has the MyTouch thing, Cadillac just doesn't seem to innovate anymore, they offer the same options on other cars mid-lux already have. A Hyundai Genesis even has a rear back up camera, and radar cruise control, and that is $41k car, the CTS just has to step it up a level. Cadillac isn't a trendsetter, they follow the Germans half the time, and the Japanese half the time, which isn't going to get them anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Dowdell    5,159

Wait... Cadillac not having automatic highbeams and fancy(ier) leather is proof they can't innovate? You realize they pioneered the damn automatic headlamp thing back in the '50s right? I'm pretty sure they were offered right up till the last 1996 Fleetwood rolled off the line.

The CTS *does* have keyless start, but you turn a knob rather than push a button.

The CTS *does* have rear view camera.

GM was raked over the coals for offering heads up displays for years. Now that they're gone from the Cadillacs, suddenly people want them back?

Suede headliner is a complete farce.

Heated steering wheel would be nice, but isn't a deal breaker for many (any?) people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Push button start is lame.

Heads up display is lame.

Rear view camera? It's not a Winnebago..seems pointless in a small car like the CTS. Drivers should learn to use the mirrors.

Heated wheel would be nice, but not a deal breaker, IMHO.

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
balthazar    2,004

Oldsmoboi ~ >>"You realize they pioneered the damn automatic headlamp thing back in the '50s right?"<<

Correct: industry first: Cadillac, Autronic Eye, 1952. Every luxury brand today has copied this tech, among countless others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smk4565    351

Wait... Cadillac not having automatic highbeams and fancy(ier) leather is proof they can't innovate? You realize they pioneered the damn automatic headlamp thing back in the '50s right? I'm pretty sure they were offered right up till the last 1996 Fleetwood rolled off the line.

The CTS *does* have keyless start, but you turn a knob rather than push a button.

The CTS *does* have rear view camera.

GM was raked over the coals for offering heads up displays for years. Now that they're gone from the Cadillacs, suddenly people want them back?

Suede headliner is a complete farce.

Heated steering wheel would be nice, but isn't a deal breaker for many (any?) people

I said they don't innovate anymore. I know they used to, that is why Cadillac way back in the old days was a good brand. Lately, (over the past 10 years or so) Cadillac hasn't been on the leading edge. The Germans and Japanese are the innovators, Cadillac just keeps following them.

Cadillac has auto off high beams, blind spot alert, lane keep assist, yet none of that is on the CTS. If they really want the CTS to challenge the Germans, they need everything in their arsenal and then some, why hold back the CTS just to attempt to sell 5,000 lame duck STS's per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
balthazar    2,004

The problem is: the vast bulk of amenities has already been invented- things like 'park assist' only enable the infirm lexus & mercedes owner to keep driving. Park assist is the polar opposite think to any sort of self-proclimaed 'driver's car'. So is blind spot alert & lane keep assist - all worthless tech for the slack-jawed & lazy, no matter who offers it. The one-upmanship between makes is ridiculous- it needs to end. Problem there is the ingrained Pavlovian expectation of 'New!!Tech!!' every 12 months to force more sales won't 'allow' it to end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aldw    4

Wait... Cadillac not having automatic highbeams and fancy(ier) leather is proof they can't innovate? You realize they pioneered the damn automatic headlamp thing back in the '50s right? I'm pretty sure they were offered right up till the last 1996 Fleetwood rolled off the line.

The CTS *does* have keyless start, but you turn a knob rather than push a button.

The CTS *does* have rear view camera.

GM was raked over the coals for offering heads up displays for years. Now that they're gone from the Cadillacs, suddenly people want them back?

Suede headliner is a complete farce.

Heated steering wheel would be nice, but isn't a deal breaker for many (any?) people

Elements like that are what help draw a luxury customer's attention to a product instead of a competitor's, if Caddy always goes the lazy stupid way out of everything then it will fall and deservedly so.

The problem is: the vast bulk of amenities has already been invented- things like 'park assist' only enable the infirm lexus & mercedes owner to keep driving. Park assist is the polar opposite think to any sort of self-proclimaed 'driver's car'. So is blind spot alert & lane keep assist - all worthless tech for the slack-jawed & lazy, no matter who offers it. The one-upmanship between makes is ridiculous- it needs to end. Problem there is the ingrained Pavlovian expectation of 'New!!Tech!!' every 12 months to force more sales won't 'allow' it to end.

Stuff like that drives the luxury market in many ways, so simply acting like it doesn't exist will only hurt Cadillac's competitiveness in the luxury vehicle market.

Edited by aldw
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want better cupholders. Heated/chilled, size adjustable, lighted. As far as useful gadgets, an in-dash microwave, toaster, fridge, and espresso machine would be nice also. :) (yeah, a bit extreme, but useful for commuters)

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.