I'm betting that the oil-temp sender calibration they're referring to has to do with the PCM's safe-mode that should dial back power output to save the engine in case of high oil, coolant, etc. temps. Many if not most modern vehicles have this functionality including the M5, Mustang Cobras, etc. Looks to me like the PCM didn't get the message, accounting for the high oil consumption and 300degF oil temps. That being the case, their caution appears well justified. Flogging the car harder under the circumstances might well have resulted in bits of bottom end bouncing off the pavement, and a properly-calibrated car might not have been quite as quick.Originally Posted by CVP33
Because GM's been using the M3 as one of their benchmarks? It's what they're using in their dealer ride-and-drive comparisons...Why the M3 was used is beyond me. A two door compact vs. a mid-sized 4 door? Pahleeeeeease.
The C/D comment that the CTS-V did not make up the ground that it lost to the M5 off-the-line wasn't exactly correct. They didn't publish 0-60 numbers for the M5, but the V-car's 0-60 was maybe half a second slower than typical M5 numbers. But by the end of the quarter it'd pulled back a lot of that and posted a higher trap speed. So one can reasonably say that if one ignores the off-the-line stuff and just measures acceleration through the gears the car's at least as quick as an M5.I was however surprised with R&T's 1/4 speed, 13.4 secs @ 109 mph. That is some serious top end. Additionally their 0-100 was just north of 11.4 secs. Incredible. I'm struggling to see a downside to this car.