: CTS-V vs M5 - Results



lusterblade
08-25-08, 04:50 PM
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6963


Monticello, New York — Un-precedented. That is the only way to describe this showdown between BMW's legendary M5 and Cadillac's all-new CTS-V. That Cadillac and BMW accepted our invitation to pick the drivers and pit their cars against each other at a neutral site for hot laps and winner-takes-all bragging rights speaks volumes to where these companies are in the sports-sedan hierarchy.

Cadillac is the hungry challenger, making no secret that it has benchmarked the M5 in producing its new 556-bhp CTS-V, right down to specifying the same Michelin PS2 tires. So hungry, in fact, that it agreed to the face*off three weeks before it would allow any journalists (including us) to drive the car.

BMW knows it builds a car all others seek to emulate. It also knows it has a new M5 in the works. Still, the company is game to put its 3-year-old M5 to the test, bringing two versions, a 6-speed manual and 7-speed SMG model piloted by veteran BMW racing ace, Bill Auberlen. Cadillac shows up with a single, jet-black CTS-V with Performance Vehicle Operations Director John Heinricy as the designated hotshoe.

It's dawn and we're at the Monticello Motor Club, 90 miles northwest of Manhattan. The club's grand opening is in two days. Outside the main gate is a throng of more than 100 workers who are being held up — by us. "We've got a little over an hour to do hot laps before I have to let them in to finish up the track," says Jason Bannerman, the track director. For not being finished, the track looks far prettier than most I've seen finished. When it's done it'll be an extraordinary place.

The 3.4-mile loop we used is incredibly smooth and very green. So new, no one has yet done timed laps on it. Bill and John are eager to learn the track and begin circling in borrowed rental cars. A rolling chicane consisting of track staff and a street-sweeper keep them from playing out that scene from Days of Thunder. They're flagged in before the rental cars give out.

The massive construction around the grounds has left a lot of dirt on the track. It's a new surface and will take a few race days to become seasoned. John and Bill are a little apprehensive about some water on the back side of the track that's in shade and also the ever-present dust that seems to be embedded in the surface. They don't seem to worry much as they reach just shy of 150 mph down the main straight on their first run. The first session goes for 20 minutes and the first overall track record is appropriately set by the CTS-V at 2 minutes, 47.55 seconds. Heinricy has countless hours behind the wheel of the car and is right at home; he's also an experienced racer — it shows. The glossy black and chrome of Lord Vader's ride taunts Auberlen into action. He has been racing BMWs for years, but hasn't been in an M5 for four years, yet gets situated quickly. He switches cars from the 6-speed manual to the 7-speed SMG-equipped car and rips out a 2:45.96 and the Cadillac crew cringes. Team BMW is suppressing grins.

Heinricy is confident his 6-speed manual V can run with the ultra-racy paddle-shifted M5. Looking at the stats, the V has a big advantage with 56 more horsepower, 168 lb.-ft. more torque and only a 150-lb. weight penalty. He puts the power to good use and stretches the legs of his V to 149.18 mph and runs a 2:45.55. Our Vbox GPS data shows that both drivers and cars are performing nearly identical laps. With the water patch drying and the sun warming the track surface, both drivers start running cool-down laps between fast laps. It's the last session and it's too close to call yet. Auberlen runs two hard laps and comes in first with a smile. His timing beacon says he did a 2:44.70 and the GPS data agrees. Heinricy is still out and Kevin Smith of Cadillac's communications is perspiring. The V is flagged in, Smith's stopwatch says it's close. The V ran three fast laps, each one faster than the previous by a tenth of a second. The final one is a 2:44.23, just under a half-second faster than the BMW. Could the M5 go quicker? Maybe. But for now we'll have to let the track get back to its construction.

Cadillac won by the skin of its teeth and all the participants walked away happy. Cadillac has made a CTS-V that can best the BMW M5 for likely the cost difference of a Chevy Malibu, while BMW knows its 3-year-old M5 is still close competition for the newest CTS-V. I'm sure BMW will be glad to raise the bar again with the next M5, but for now the V is king.

jasaero
08-25-08, 05:13 PM
Wonder how tight that track is outside the straight they hit 150mph on?? Seems it is a pretty tight track as close as the M5 comes? Pretty amazing both companies agreed to do this though. Will be even cooler when magazines can put the same driver in each car to run such laps though.

dqw1
08-25-08, 05:13 PM
The V won. For some reason I thought there was going be more to this test. I guess that comes later. If it was this close this round the next M5 is gonna be a monster. Both are very good sedans. NOW WHAT'S THE DAMN PRICE?

big_tugg
08-25-08, 05:28 PM
hmmmm BMW next monster will make GM adjust lol. Props to BMW and caddy...waiting on price and info on wheel hop and other gen 1 issues before I order...

jasaero
08-25-08, 05:34 PM
All info suggests that Wheel hop, toasted diffs, and most other Gen I issues are a distant memory due to asymetric half shafts to solve the hop and a brand new more robust V specific diff. to solve the fried diffs. Most of the other issues were solved with the move to the Gen II cts base car. Really the only info you need worry about is price.

The Tony Show
08-25-08, 06:07 PM
Stick versus SMG? Hmmm.....

dqw1
08-25-08, 06:17 PM
I'm with ya Tony. I had to read the article a second time because the first time I scanned it until I seen the V won and seen it was the 6 speed vs the SMG on the 2nd read.

terminal Velocity
08-25-08, 06:22 PM
Still, I'm a little disappointed the V didn't get a bigger margin of victory...

The Tony Show
08-25-08, 06:24 PM
What a letdown that article is. It's obvious if Auberlen switched from the stick to the SMG that he feels the auto is better for the course. Since Cadillac had only the one car, a better test would have been stick versus stick. Heinricy's record lap at the 'ring shows how having both hands on the wheel and focusing purely on the line can make for faster lap times.

Either way it's a monumental accomplishment that Cadillac has built a sedan that can run comparable lap times to an M5 for ~$30k less, but I wish the transmission variable was taken out of the equation for this comparison.

jimbo1320
08-25-08, 06:39 PM
Very close. I thought the "V" would be faster by more than a 1/2 second. With monsterous torque on tap. The next gen M5 will be a handful for sure.
In any case good job John. Prices, please.

Jpjr
08-26-08, 12:23 AM
Still, I'm a little disappointed the V didn't get a bigger margin of victory...

little? i'm quite disappointed. that is far from sucking the doors off. hopefully it fares better against the merc.

JEM
08-26-08, 01:10 AM
Bringing Auberlen to something like this...well, someone thought it was a serious enough gunfight to dust off the Browning M2.

I haven't looked at the layout of this track, there's tracks where a Honda S2000 would be faster than either of these two barges.

The three-pedal M5 was a bodge, a sop to US buyers who didn't buy into the SMG thing. I don't think it's in any way competitive with the SMG car.

Lord Cadillac
08-26-08, 01:51 AM
little? i'm quite disappointed. that is far from sucking the doors off. hopefully it fares better against the merc.
I think the fact of it all is - with equally skilled drivers, the CTS-V is going to win every race, every time. That's that. And it says a lot... GM was making high performance cars long before BMW was. In fact, it wasn't all that long ago when BMW "M"s weren't even that fast. In the late 90s, the Lexus GS400 was faster than the BMW M5. The late 90s weren't even that long ago. GM knows what it's doing when it comes to performance..

V-Love
08-26-08, 03:01 AM
little? i'm quite disappointed. that is far from sucking the doors off. hopefully it fares better against the merc.

Definetely no doors being sucked off. I'm kinda pissed but shouldn't be. At least I can get a 550+hp Caddy. I guess its gonna be a drivers race. They are real close.

caddiedrummer
08-26-08, 08:21 AM
I think the fact of it all is - with equally skilled drivers, the CTS-V is going to win every race, every time. That's that. And it says a lot... GM was making high performance cars long before BMW was. In fact, it wasn't all that long ago when BMW "M"s weren't even that fast. In the late 90s, the Lexus GS400 was faster than the BMW M5. The late 90s weren't even that long ago. GM knows what it's doing when it comes to performance..

Owning an M5 now with a V on order I'd hoped for better results, but there will be other tests. I would point out that there is no such thing as "equally skilled drivers" so drivers will always have to be taken into account. Also it will come as news to a lot of folks that 'GM was making high performance cars long before BMW". Check out the 328 of the 1930s and 507 of the 50s--great performance cars now worth a fortune.

Having owned several Caddies I am more worried about the quality of the V vs the M. My sister just bought an 08 528i and the fit finish of that car and my M is much, much better than any Caddy or Vette I ever owned (sadly, my 4 Vipers have much better fit/finish than the GMs but they only make about 6 a day.) I am cautiously optimistic that Caddy will get it right..

Jpjr
08-26-08, 10:17 AM
I think the fact of it all is - with equally skilled drivers, the CTS-V is going to win every race, every time. That's that. And it says a lot... GM was making high performance cars long before BMW was. In fact, it wasn't all that long ago when BMW "M"s weren't even that fast. In the late 90s, the Lexus GS400 was faster than the BMW M5. The late 90s weren't even that long ago. GM knows what it's doing when it comes to performance..


It sucks, but the 'equally skilled drivers", "GM knows" defenses are not what translate into sales. Why would any M5 owner go through the trouble of moving to a V (they obviously have plenty of money) if it is merely a drivers race?

I am a GM loyalist who will be going V all the way. But turning the blinders off it would take a lot more than a few ticks for a car with 56 more hp and newer technology to sway me. Lets hope the V2 tested was not broken in...

terminal Velocity
08-26-08, 10:54 AM
I think the fact of it all is - with equally skilled drivers, the CTS-V is going to win every race, every time. That's that. And it says a lot... GM was making high performance cars long before BMW was. In fact, it wasn't all that long ago when BMW "M"s weren't even that fast. In the late 90s, the Lexus GS400 was faster than the BMW M5. The late 90s wasn't even that long ago. GM knows what it's doing when it comes to performance..I guess if you go by the fact BMW didn't start building automobiles until 1928, yeah, I guess you're right.

BMW might not have always had the most hp of any car in its class all the time, but they are usually amongst the fastest. In the 80's, what sedan had 256hp? Ever driven a late 70s 323i? How about a 2002ti? A 2002 turbo?

As for the GS400 vs. M5, you've got your memories mixed up, I think. The GS400 didn't come out until after the last 315hp E34 M5 was built in 1995. The 400hp E39 M5 didn't come out until 1999 and I can guarantee you no GS is even close to as fast...

atdeneve
08-26-08, 12:23 PM
I think the most interesting thing that this article offers is the ability to compare future lap times once more people get runs on this circuit. I imagine not many would be able to wring out much better times than the 2:44.23 (V) / 2:44.70 (M5) times (for all intents and purposes, those times are indistinguishable) that Heinricy and Auberlen pulled off. Once we get some video of people running Monticello, we can see how different cars stack up against the V and the M5, as driven by some real drivers - cuz they was haulin some azz out there.

As far as the results between the V and the M5, I was kinda disappointed. Yea, I understand the V substantially undercuts the price of the M. However, if the V only marginally exceeds it in performance, it's not the smashing victory that I was expecting (and was led to believe). I mean Lutz did flat out say that it was gonna "suck the doors off the M5".

Yea, the manufacturer's performance numbers do indicate a more than marginal difference in performance. But then again, what of the numbers achieved by Edmunds little test run - 0-60 mph in 4.6 sec (maybe 4.3 sec); 1/4 mile in 12.5 sec. I mean, that's a far cry from 0-60 mph in 3.9 sec (0.7 sec difference!) and the 1/4 mile in 12 sec (0.5 sec difference). I do hope that it was just the lack of the driver's abilities to wring out even semi-representative numbers, but...

Claims of 4.6 sec 0-60 runs for the 1st gen come to mind. The car was definitely capable of pullin such times, if only it could get the power down. Is it gonna be the same kinda scenario as occurred with the first V? Capable of 3.9 sec, but more likely to get 4.3-4.6 sec?

I don't think that's gonna be acceptable this go round. Really don't. The M5 has been around doin its thing for some time now. You can't just eek out a bit more than the outgoing M5 and expect to get a pat on the back and a round of applause for simply matching in performance what they've already been doing for the last couple of years. You've gotta downright smash it. Cuz you can be sure as hell that the next gen M5 is gonna do just that.

Back in the first match up, the E39 was reigning king for a good 4 or 5 years, before the first V showed up. Just as that generation was running through its last paces, the newly introduced V offered similar performance - a bit faster. That was big. That was an accomplishment. Especially for the first time out. The V came out swinging. But that was freshmen year. And it had more than its fair share of problems.

Sophomore year, I don't think that'll cut it. You can't come around, years after your specific target has already been on market for some time, and just barely out-perform it, especially when you yourself stated that it wouldn't even be close. And you definitely can't be under-delivering on your publicized performance numbers. Not only would that be contrary to the purported claims of the manufacturer's performance numbers but, since anything less would not be enough of a margin between the V and the M5, it'd be contrary to the "suck the doors off" statement, as well.

This second go round, as I see it, Cadillac has a lot to gain, and a whole lot to lose. Don't get me wrong, either way, the 2nd gen V will be a phenomenal car. But it has a lot more riding on it than just being a great sports sedan, in and of itself. Lutz made certain statements. Certain strong statements. When you make such bold statements, you better intend to fully deliver or risk losing all credibility in the eyes of those in whom you sought to gain respect.

atdeneve
08-26-08, 12:30 PM
I think the fact of it all is - with equally skilled drivers, the CTS-V is going to win every race, every time. That's that. And it says a lot... GM was making high performance cars long before BMW was. In fact, it wasn't all that long ago when BMW "M"s weren't even that fast. In the late 90s, the Lexus GS400 was faster than the BMW M5. The late 90s wasn't even that long ago. GM knows what it's doing when it comes to performance..


I guess if you go by the fact BMW didn't start building automobiles until 1928, yeah, I guess you're right.

BMW might not have always had the most hp of any car in its class all the time, but they are usually amongst the fastest. In the 80's, what sedan had 256hp? Ever driven a late 70s 323i? How about a 2002ti? A 2002 turbo?

As for the GS400 vs. M5, you've got your memories mixed up, I think. The GS400 didn't come out until after the last 315hp E34 M5 was built in 1995. The 400hp E39 M5 didn't come out until 1999 and I can guarantee you no GS is even close to as fast...

Yeah, there ain't no way any GS400 is keeping pace with an E39 M5. Straight line, the E39 will pull. On a track, forget it.

Jon
08-26-08, 02:12 PM
Hmmm, how many years until I can get one...

Silverspeed
08-26-08, 02:16 PM
Hmmm, how many years until I can get one...

I'll settle for them telling me how many years it will be before they announce the price.

lawfive
08-26-08, 02:26 PM
This race was no more or less than a tribute to John Heinricy's shifting skills. I'd love to see SMG vs. sport mode A6, balls out.

Lord Cadillac
08-26-08, 03:00 PM
If one driver is better than another - than the driver is better. If the car is faster, it's faster. We're seeing the Cadillac CTS-V is faster around a track than a BMW M5.


Owning an M5 now with a V on order I'd hoped for better results, but there will be other tests. I would point out that there is no such thing as "equally skilled drivers" so drivers will always have to be taken into account. Also it will come as news to a lot of folks that 'GM was making high performance cars long before BMW". Check out the 328 of the 1930s and 507 of the 50s--great performance cars now worth a fortune.

Having owned several Caddies I am more worried about the quality of the V vs the M. My sister just bought an 08 528i and the fit finish of that car and my M is much, much better than any Caddy or Vette I ever owned (sadly, my 4 Vipers have much better fit/finish than the GMs but they only make about 6 a day.) I am cautiously optimistic that Caddy will get it right..

Thirty grand is thirty grand. I'm sure not ALL BMW M5 owners are wealthy. Most are probably in over their heads. But even for wealthy people - $30k is a lot of money. A good portion of wealthy people have what they have because of making smart decisions. Paying $30k more for a car that's about equal doesn't seem like a great decision.


It sucks, but the 'equally skilled drivers", "GM knows" defenses are not what translate into sales. Why would any M5 owner go through the trouble of moving to a V (they obviously have plenty of money) if it is merely a drivers race?

I am a GM loyalist who will be going V all the way. But turning the blinders off it would take a lot more than a few ticks for a car with 56 more hp and newer technology to sway me. Lets hope the V2 tested was not broken in...

I'm not aware of all the years. I'm just remembering that when the 1998 GS400 came to market, it was faster than the M5...


As for the GS400 vs. M5, you've got your memories mixed up, I think. The GS400 didn't come out until after the last 315hp E34 M5 was built in 1995. The 400hp E39 M5 didn't come out until 1999 and I can guarantee you no GS is even close to as fast...

gothicaleigh
08-26-08, 03:53 PM
GM was making high performance cars long before BMW was. In fact, it wasn't all that long ago when BMW "M"s weren't even that fast. In the late 90s, the Lexus GS400 was faster than the BMW M5.

About performance? BMW recreated the world with the 2002 and the M1 was the world's first truly modern supercar.

Not that fast? The '86-'92 BMW "e30" M3 still ranks with more race wins credited to it then any other production car.

terminal Velocity
08-26-08, 04:00 PM
I'm not aware of all the years. I'm just remembering that when the 1998 GS400 came to market, it was faster than the M5...At that point, the last M5 was made 3 years prior. And the '99 spanks the GS400. And I bet the 315hp E34 still spanks it. I think you're confusing a comparison with the GS400 and the 282hp 540i with an M5.

nickc50310
08-26-08, 04:40 PM
Did anyone else think that whole article was horribly biased for the BMW?

NormV
08-26-08, 07:29 PM
So much for gobbs of torque and the latest thing since sliced bread, MRC shocks. Definitely didn't think it'd be this close but thinking back to V-day @ Summit chasing the prototypes around the V2 is anything but revolutionary.


Just think what an RS6 TT with quattro would do on that new surface againist the RWD's?! :)


Norm

JEM
08-26-08, 09:00 PM
So much for gobbs of torque and the latest thing since sliced bread, MRC shocks. Definitely didn't think it'd be this close but thinking back to V-day @ Summit chasing the prototypes around the V2 is anything but revolutionary.


Oh, come on. That's one track, different configurations might show more of an advantage for one or the other; there's tracks where a Honda S2000 would have been faster than either. Half a second is half a second. The SMG works best on track; it's a pig on the street.



Just think what an RS6 TT with quattro would do on that new surface againist the RWD's?! :)

There's speed, and there's fun. There's lots of fast Audis but most of 'em are not much fun.

JEM
08-26-08, 09:02 PM
At that point, the last M5 was made 3 years prior. And the '99 spanks the GS400. And I bet the 315hp E34 still spanks it. I think you're confusing a comparison with the GS400 and the 282hp 540i with an M5.

The GS400 was comparable to the M62TU-powered ('99-up) 540i. The GS400 had a very nicely matched engine/slushbox, but it was nowhere near a match for an E39 M5 and a decent driver in an E34 M5 would certainly be quicker as well. We're talking straight-line here; if the road goes left and right the GS400 loses a whole lot more ground. The GS400's also got pretty awful flat seats (typical for Lexus) that aren't going to keep you where you need to be.

concorso
08-26-08, 09:02 PM
Oh, come on. That's one track, different configurations might show more of an advantage for one or the other; there's tracks where a Honda S2000 would have been faster than either. Half a second is half a second. The SMG works best on track; it's a pig on the street.



There's speed, and there's fun. There's lots of fast Audis but most of 'em are not much fun. The R8 is fun...but not really fast...just saying. :)

The Tony Show
08-26-08, 09:43 PM
Did anyone else think that whole article was horribly biased for the BMW?

You must not read a lot of car rags. Most of them would declare BMW the winner of a comparo even if they didn't show up.

CIWS
08-27-08, 07:41 AM
Just keep our fingers crossed they let Top Gear have one. Although Jeremy "hates" American built cars and favors the Germans, if the 09V has truly made the leap up, I believe he'll give credit where it is due. His biggest complaints on the 04V was the "bonging" He never said anything bad about it's power or handling.

rand49er
08-27-08, 09:57 AM
Did anyone else think that whole article was horribly biased for the BMW?And you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, right?



J/k, of course. But, yes, they are ALWAYS biased.

Having said that, I have to agree that the V2 didn't blow a several-year-old-design M5 away as it was maybe suppose to. And maybe, just maybe, some of the apparent bias we're seeing here is because the V2 didn't blow away an old M5, and the article had a little smirk in its choice of words because of it.

Certainly, both are awesome cars! BTW, I'll take my thirty grand in large bills, please. :D

Lord Cadillac
08-27-08, 10:53 AM
Thanks for the history lessons, everyone (those who participated).

Jpjr
08-27-08, 11:29 AM
In defense of the rags, the V2 will be the first American luxary performance sedan I can think of that can seriuosly compete with German competition.

Kmajecki
08-27-08, 11:58 AM
Was he bragging about the M5 being N/A? Sounded like someone complaining after they lost a race "well he had nos" etc... As if a supercharger was cheating. Run wutchuh brung bud. Isn't the plan for the next M5 to possibly be twin turbo or was that a rumor?

Bragging rights from the magazines are cool and all, but as long as i can smoke one from a light or during a run on the highway, i'm all good. :cloud9: That's prob the only place i'll be next to one anyway.

NormV
08-27-08, 12:10 PM
There is something of interest as they explain the fast line around the course that does not include sliding the car for all of you coming to V-day ll.

Got to love PTM full throttle through the water! :). MRC shocks...pdff!

It is a bit of joke that the Beemer weighs same or more and only puts 435 HP to the wheels. Notice the V didn't have the heavy double glass roof. :)


Norm

Silverspeed
08-27-08, 03:49 PM
One of the thing I noticed in the video where they are talking about both cars is that they had IDENTICAL straight away speeds of 149mph. This is EXTREMELY dissapointing to me, as I was hoping the V would walk an M5 in a straight line. Evidently it won't as admitted by Jonn Heinricy saying the straight speeds were identical, and this is all the way to 150. Don't get too excited by the 12.0 second claims, and don't expect to walk M5's on the freeway either. Extremely dissapointing.

Edmunds is the only road test I've seen with 4.6 0-60 and 12.5 qtr at 115.3. I think this is more real world and I also think there will be no "sucking the doors off" of anything. What an ignorant comment to make. It is and will ne a drivers race on a track, and even(dissappointingly) in a straight line.

LV_V
08-27-08, 04:39 PM
One of the thing I noticed in the video where they are talking about both cars is that they had IDENTICAL straight away speeds of 149mph. This is EXTREMELY dissapointing to me, as I was hoping the V would walk an M5 in a straight line. Evidently it won't as admitted by Jonn Heinricy saying the straight speeds were identical, and this is all the way to 150. Don't get too excited by the 12.0 second claims, and don't expect to walk M5's on the freeway either. Extremely dissapointing.

Edmunds is the only road test I've seen with 4.6 0-60 and 12.5 qtr at 115.3. I think this is more real world and I also think there will be no "sucking the doors off" of anything. What an ignorant comment to make. It is and will ne a drivers race on a track, and even(dissappointingly) in a straight line.

Don't take everything you hear and see for face value. I personally wouldn't put any value on anything that happened or was said in this "shootout". It seems like they were trying not to hurt each others feelings in that interview and were just spitting out some prearranged BS that the manufacturer's agreed to. There was NOTHING in this article or video that makes me believe this race/test holds any water. Have you driven an M5? The M5 barely pulls on my V1... I drive my friend's SMG M5 all the time and if the V2 is to be anything above the V1 (which I am sure you can tell it is from the released specs alone) then this wouldn't even be a contest, on the track, on the highway, or light to light.

Silverspeed
08-27-08, 04:48 PM
The M5 barely pulls on my V1...

At what speed? At speeds over 80-90mph an M5 will walk a V1 hard. Hell, an M5 will walk a LS2 C6 at triple digit speeds, and it will oblitierate a V1.

MacOSR
08-27-08, 08:02 PM
The M5 barely pulls on my V1...

:hide: I mean no disrespect by this...but... Having owned both an 04 CTS-V and an 06 M5 you must have been in P400 mode and not P500 mode. The M5 walks a V1 CTS-V pretty good up to 100 and past 100 the M5 keeps pulling harder and harder. There is no comparison at all between the two! Either you have some serious HP mods to your V1 or the M5 is running in P400 mode.

concorso
08-27-08, 10:02 PM
The V1 and the E39 M5 are very similar. The E60 M5 should rock a V1...

v84life
08-27-08, 11:16 PM
All this concern over a article done by the worst rag out there. Road and Track has always posted the slowest time for anything GM. Did you see there first few road tests of the current Z06. That car quickly proved it kicked ass . Hell for awhile kicked everybodies ass.. I'm not concerned yet. I will wait for other tracks plus straight line testing. Plus testing auto vs auto and stick vs stick tests. I have a funny feeling there won't be many M5's coming to future testing though. Same as Ferrari wouldn't bring many to race heads up with the Z06. I will wait for Willow springs or Button Willow comparisons as well.... I'm staying open minded about this....:thumbsup:

aintmisbehavinn
08-27-08, 11:23 PM
New here, good info. Looking to buy a Caddy.:yup:

buf05CTSV
08-27-08, 11:41 PM
Welcome.. and you should. But I agree with v84life.. R&T tends to be really sucky overall, and I bet the V2 will show it's true colors in upcoming comparisons with more legitimate journalism. I think R&T clocked something like a 4.2 0-60mph on a Z06... where Car and Driver did 3.4. just goes to show you.

terminal Velocity
08-28-08, 09:55 AM
One of the thing I noticed in the video where they are talking about both cars is that they had IDENTICAL straight away speeds of 149mph. This is EXTREMELY dissapointing to me, as I was hoping the V would walk an M5 in a straight line. Evidently it won't as admitted by Jonn Heinricy saying the straight speeds were identical, and this is all the way to 150. Don't get too excited by the 12.0 second claims, and don't expect to walk M5's on the freeway either. Extremely dissapointing.

Edmunds is the only road test I've seen with 4.6 0-60 and 12.5 qtr at 115.3. I think this is more real world and I also think there will be no "sucking the doors off" of anything. What an ignorant comment to make. It is and will ne a drivers race on a track, and even(dissappointingly) in a straight line.And what was the exit speed of the previous turn? Don't know? Just as a bad start can throw away a run of a car that may be a second faster than another, that previous turn may be naturally better for the M5 and it may have a higher exit speed. A 5mph difference would not be unheard of. And if you exit faster, you can keep that margin even if you have less hp.

At this point, who knows? It's one comparo. And like JEM said, tracks differ and the way cars behave on them differ as well...

The Tony Show
08-28-08, 10:10 AM
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that it's between $30,000 and $40,000 less expensive a car. Material build quality in the CTS is excellent (as already shown by the 2008 and 2009 V6 CTS), and the performance looks to be at least slightly better than the M5.

Even if the other magazine tests produce the similar results, GM has produced a car with a World Class interior and build quality that outperforms a benchmark sedan for 2/3rds of the price. That's a winner, people.

atdeneve
08-29-08, 10:57 AM
That's a fall back argument, though.

If you were a BMW guy, you'd be saying the M5 has already been at that level of performance for the last 3-4 years - it's old news... It'd just go back and forth.

It still remains that the package that was being put forth by Lutz was a serious sports sedan that would literally demolish the E60 M5 (what else can be gleaned from such a statement as "suck the doors of an M5"?) at a fraction of the cost. That, obviously, is a lofty goal to aspire to, however, that is what was being unabashedly promised. And, of course, that is what we're all looking for to be delivered.

To go back on that statement and say, "Well, guys, we got similar performance for nearly 2/3rds the price" is weak sauce. To try and shift focus from the initial assurance of just embarrassing the M5 onto the lower price and value of the package is weak sauce.

Well, as the V gets out into some more hands, at least there'll still be some more testing to look forward to ... with fingers crossed that they do deliver.

Jpjr
08-29-08, 11:04 AM
That's a fall back argument, though.

If you were a BMW guy, you'd be saying the M5 has already been at that level of performance for the last 3-4 years - it's old news... It'd just go back and forth.

..

I have to agree with this because my coworker owns an M5 and is making this exact argument. You may be able to sway some people based on the cost savings, but people already paying $90k for a sedan are more concerned with the product and performance and image rather than cost. They will easily wait for the twin turbo M5 due out in 2010.

All I can say is that GM had better price the V2 to turn heads, because performance isn't going to suck the doors off M5/E63 unless that R&T test was completely off base.

dqw1
08-29-08, 01:08 PM
I agree with the last two post. The V simply did not suck the doors off the M5 as promised. If GM wants to salvage anything from the promise Lutz made, it better be priced 55-61k. (I say that price range because then I can get one).

The Tony Show
08-29-08, 01:22 PM
We have yet to see an SMG vs Auto battle, or the straight line figures from a decent driver. One showdown of two cars with different transmissions is hardly the final word on whether or not they delivered on their promise to roast the M5. I'm still shocked that Cadillac brought the stick to the test after Heinricy setting the 'Ring lap time in an Auto.

jasaero
08-29-08, 01:35 PM
I think one thing that no article has stated, but makes a big difference in this particular category is just how well this new V rides compared to the M5 with it's MRT suspension. Also, the MRT isn't 100% magic, so if the V has a ride comfort advantage that is happening with softer suspension setup and there is no way it will be able to hold the same speed as an M5 on a lot of corners. The extra power from the supercharged engine also gives it a slight balance disadvantage to the M5 in cornering. These things were all known before any tests happened, so no one should be TOO surprised that this car can't eak out a full second lead on an M5 going around, what sounds like a pretty tight 2 and 3/4 minute track. And if I am not mistaken it's 'Ring time DID in fact blow the doors off the M5 on that home turf track??

But, my primary point is still that ANY track time advantage for the new CTS-V on the M5 IS a HUGE deal if the CTS-V's MRT suspension actually allows it to have that track time advantage WHILE ALSO having a more compliant ride. Such ride compliance advanges are somewhat pointless for most buyers when comparing two sports cars like the Corvette, GT-R, 911, Ferrari and such, but are a HUGE deal when it is buyers of an all out performance Luxury Sedan. This fact can be seen in the ride tune difference between an M5 and M3 even.

Jpjr
08-29-08, 01:59 PM
I think one thing that no article has stated, but makes a big difference in this particular category is just how well this new V rides compared to the M5 with it's MRT suspension. Also, the MRT isn't 100% magic, so if the V has a ride comfort advantage that is happening with softer suspension setup and there is no way it will be able to hold the same speed as an M5 on a lot of corners. The extra power from the supercharged engine also gives it a slight balance disadvantage to the M5 in cornering. These things were all known before any tests happened, so no one should be TOO surprised that this car can't eak out a full second lead on an M5 going around, what sounds like a pretty tight 2 and 3/4 minute track. And if I am not mistaken it's 'Ring time DID in fact blow the doors off the M5 on that home turf track??

But, my primary point is still that ANY track time advantage for the new CTS-V on the M5 IS a HUGE deal if the CTS-V's MRT suspension actually allows it to have that track time advantage WHILE ALSO having a more compliant ride. Such ride compliance advanges are somewhat pointless for most buyers when comparing two sports cars like the Corvette, GT-R, 911, Ferrari and such, but are a HUGE deal when it is buyers of an all out performance Luxury Sedan. This fact can be seen in the ride tune difference between an M5 and M3 even.


Unfortunatly though the V2 barely beats the outgoing gen M5 in performance according to the article. The new twin turbo M5 will be engineered to smoke the V and BMW will likely lose very few customers.

That doesn't mean the Caddy is not an amazing car. With some weight savings and higher boost this platform could easily be over 600hp at the flywheel for 2010 or 2011. In other words they have finally built a performance platform that has lots of upside right off the assembly line.

jasaero
08-29-08, 03:11 PM
Unfortunatly though the V2 barely beats the outgoing gen M5 in performance according to the article. The new twin turbo M5 will be engineered to smoke the V and BMW will likely lose very few customers.

That doesn't mean the Caddy is not an amazing car. With some weight savings and higher boost this platform could easily be over 600hp at the flywheel for 2010 or 2011. In other words they have finally built a performance platform that has lots of upside right off the assembly line.

You seem to have missed my point. Matching or slightly beating another cars numbers around a track in this category while simultaneously offering a noticeably better ride, is a HUGE deal in this category IMHO. Even if BMW offers an M5 a good bit faster in 5 years, if they don't at the same time raise the bar on ride compliance compared to this CTS-V they will have accomplished nothing. What I am saying we need someone to give an impression of whether the ride is noticeably more compliant in the V2 compared to the M5 in it's most soft settings. JUST think what this CTS-V might be able to do if Cadillac added some BMW like tweakability to the suspension and engine tune.

ALSO, there is A LOT to be said in the fact this car can take an M5 in it's all out P500/Race damped mode while only having one power/durability tune mode and 2 suspension tune settings, particularly if the tour mode is more comfortable to drive than BMW's softest P400 settings. If this car proves to be a more comfortable daily driver than the M5, WHILE ALSO getting away from the need for lots of configuration settings to tune in levels of comfort and sportiness trade offs, WHILE ALSO matching or out performing the M5, it would be HUGE to any enthusiast that is a motoring purist and not just more of a gadget/tuning freak that happens to like cars.

EDIT: If I am going to have to be messing with computer related tune settings that can have an effect on durability of my engine and such quite a bit in a car to get a tune for my current motoring situation, I would expect the car to be more comfortable and durable in the most comfort and durable tuned setting and faster and of similar or slightly less durability in the most race oriented settings. But it seems the new CTS-V may actually be more comfortable, durable, and definately seems faster all without the need for any tweaking!!

jasaero
08-29-08, 03:28 PM
NOW, what if Cadillac opened up the ability to tweak engine and suspension tune parameters for more power and harsher ride as BMW does with the M5 at the expense of expectend longevity of the car in the hands of those that like keeping things in the most tweaked out state of tune?? If this was done, my guess is that the CTS-V would just open up a wider lead around a track on the M5. Cadillac was able to avoid such tuneability and complication though, and leave the car more pure, while still creating a car that probably beats the M5 in almost all regards.

Vrocks
08-29-08, 04:04 PM
.5 seconds a lap is a big difference at those speeds, you'd have a 5 second lead in 10 laps. I'd like to know what the auto version would have run, because every test has shown it to be the superior version.

The M5 costs more and I think most people would agree that it's inferior in looks, both inside and out (and iDrive is sweet :canttalk:). When the new M5 comes out, it probably won't out perform the new V by more than .5 seconds a lap. With the way the M didvision has been going they keep getting softer and softer... So trimming another second off the existing car will be very tough. There's also not a lot of room for a realistic HP bump and I doubt they'll cut the weight down. Plus, with a SC engine, Cadillac can easily pull more power out of the LSA if they want to.

The Tony Show
08-29-08, 04:31 PM
.5 seconds a lap is a big difference at those speeds, you'd have a 5 second lead in 10 laps.

Thank you. When you see Professional racers "demolishing" the competition by 10 seconds at the finish line, they achieved that lead by running each lap .1 or .2 seconds faster for 40 or 50 laps. Take a stock CTS-V and a stock M5 and run them through a 50 lap race and the CTS-V destroys it.

jasaero
08-29-08, 05:34 PM
Thank you. When you see Professional racers "demolishing" the competition by 10 seconds at the finish line, they achieved that lead by running each lap .1 or .2 seconds faster for 40 or 50 laps. Take a stock CTS-V and a stock M5 and run them through a 50 lap race and the CTS-V destroys it.

I am also scratching my head how anyone can say it's insignificant that John H. was able to consistently go out and better the M5's last time by .5 seconds in a manual CTS-V. The manual part isn't surprising to me as I think guys as good as John H. probably average about the same amount of time lost swapping cogs as they are able to gain from the weight and balance difference. The weight and balance advantage of the manual V does most of us mere mortals no good, but seasoned professionals like John H. can get benefit from that on their best laps. Now a Dual clutch manumatic in the V would be the ultimate for stuff like this. Same shifting advantage as the auto, with nearly the same weight as the manual. That would really put a hurting on the M5 SMG.

I am still waiting for a review to compare the ride comfort of each of these cars head to head though. That will be the REAL tell all of just how significant the new CTS-V really is. If this car can match or outperform the M5 in every performance category while also offering a better ride, I would say Cadillac has come as near to Engineering and Tuning perfection as a company can get. Setting new Engineering Design and Tuning trade off bar levels are the real goal in cars like this. Not just final performance numbers. This is more true in this category than any other. It's a bigger deal here even than it is with cars like Aston Martin, Porsche, Maserati, Lamborgini or Ferarri. Those cars usually do not exist as everyday vehicles for their owners. The M5 and CTS-V will be the primary transport for many that own them.

Raising the performance to ride/lux/comfort trade off bar in this category is MUCH more important than all out numbers. Besting the all out numbers while also besting ride/lux/comfort levels of the M5 would basically be like the current book on how to engineer and tune the best Luxury performance sedan by BMW just vanishing in thin air never to be seen again and being replaced by a book of the same name written by Cadillac. Stated another way, right now you have the book by BMW and all the editorialized versions of that same book by MB, Audi and such. But it seems very possible that if this Caddy rides better than the M5, that book by BMW is about to be burned in a lot of engineering offices around the world.

atdeneve
08-29-08, 06:34 PM
.5 seconds a lap is a big difference at those speeds, you'd have a 5 second lead in 10 laps.


Thank you. When you see Professional racers "demolishing" the competition by 10 seconds at the finish line, they achieved that lead by running each lap .1 or .2 seconds faster for 40 or 50 laps. Take a stock CTS-V and a stock M5 and run them through a 50 lap race and the CTS-V destroys it.

No, no, no, no! Somehow, I knew someone was gonna try and take that argument. Not valid! No one can claim that the CTS-V destroyed the M5 off of this test. As I stated in my first post, in this test the difference in lap times is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable.

Look at the succession of lap times set, along with the difference in each succesive lap time:
1) CTS-V (Heinricy) - 2:47.55
------------- Delta - 0:01.59
2) M5 -- (Auberlen) - 2:45.96
------------- Delta - 0:00.41
3) CTS-V (Heinricy) - 2:45.55
------------- Delta - 0:00.85
4) M5 -- (Auberlen) - 2:44.70
------------- Delta - 0:00.47
5) CTS-V (Heinricy) - 2:44.23
It is pretty obvious that they are both taking significant amounts of time off their lap times with each successive run. However, due to the limited amount of time they had on the track before construction had to recommence, the CTS-V gets the last timed lap in. In addition, he has run three laps vs the M5's two.

The difference in time (0.47 sec) between each of their best times (M5 - 2:44.70 / CTS-V - 2:44.23), which you guys are citing to make rather assertive claims, are no more significantly different than the difference between each successive run. Who is to say that either one of them have yet run up against their fastest times. It is blatantly clear that they were still learning and exploring the track and their driving limits, as well as the car's, with each successive run.

The only way to have determined that they had indeed extracted the best times on that track with each particular car was to have continued, until they both reached a consistent lap time. Which they, of course, did not. So, again, as far as this test is concerned, those lap times are by no means a way of decisively claiming that, "Yes, the CTS-V bested the M5 by 0.47 sec per lap! Woohoo! It is clearly the winner!" Not exactly.

For all intents and purposes, the Monticello lap times for the CTS-V (2:44.23) and the M5 (2:44.70) are indistinguishable.


I'd like to know what the auto version would have run, because every test has shown it to be the superior version.

And where are you seeing such tests that show the auto to be so superior? The only test I've seen, showing a better automatic lap time or performance number, is the Nurburgring run, which most people would attribute to the driver, as opposed to the transmission choice. The only reason Heinricy choice the automatic was because that was the transmission he was running during the time they were fine-tuning the car. As he stated himself, being a race car driver, he was not about to switch cars and change variables just as he was going for a lap time. If he had been driving the manual during testing, he would have stuck with the manual.

As far as I know, there has been no indication whatsoever that the automatic equipped V is the faster vehicle. We don't know that.

Just saw the MotorTrend article. Wonder if that's the gearing or the driver though.

NormV
08-29-08, 06:41 PM
Perfect theroy with flaws. You'd have a fuel cell the size of the rear half of the car if your running just under 3 minutes per lap for that duration. Including lap traffic and a driver switch your theory falls short. But I get your point. :)


Norm


Thank you. When you see Professional racers "demolishing" the competition by 10 seconds at the finish line, they achieved that lead by running each lap .1 or .2 seconds faster for 40 or 50 laps. Take a stock CTS-V and a stock M5 and run them through a 50 lap race and the CTS-V destroys it.

jasaero
08-29-08, 07:28 PM
No, no, no, no! Somehow, I knew someone was gonna try and take that argument. Not valid! No one can claim that the CTS-V destroyed the M5 off of this test. As I stated in my first post, in this test the difference in lap times is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable.

Look at the succession of lap times set, along with the difference in each succesive lap time:
1) CTS-V (Heinricy) - 2:47.55
------------- Delta - 0:01.59
2) M5 -- (Auberlen) - 2:45.96
------------- Delta - 0:00.41
3) CTS-V (Heinricy) - 2:45.55
------------- Delta - 0:00.85
4) M5 -- (Auberlen) - 2:44.70
------------- Delta - 0:00.47
5) CTS-V (Heinricy) - 2:44.23
It is pretty obvious that they are both taking significant amounts of time off their lap times with each successive run. However, due to the limited amount of time they had on the track before construction had to recommence, the CTS-V gets the last timed lap in. In addition, he has run three laps vs the M5's two.

The difference in time (0.47 sec) between each of their best times (M5 - 2:44.70 / CTS-V - 2:44.23), which you guys are citing to make rather assertive claims, are no more significantly different than the difference between each successive run. Who is to say that either one of them have yet run up against their fastest times. It is blatantly clear that they were still learning and exploring the track and their driving limits, as well as the car's, with each successive run.

The only way to have determined that they had indeed extracted the best times on that track with each particular car was to have continued, until they both reached a consistent lap time. Which they, of course, did not. So, again, as far as this test is concerned, those lap times are by no means a way of decisively claiming that, "Yes, the CTS-V bested the M5 by 0.47 sec per lap! Woohoo! It is clearly the winner!" Not exactly.

For all intents and purposes, the Monticello lap times for the CTS-V (2:44.23) and the M5 (2:44.70) are indistinguishable.



And where are you seeing such tests that show the auto to be so superior? The only test I've seen, showing a better automatic lap time or performance number, is the Nurburgring run, which most people would attribute to the driver, as opposed to the transmission choice. The only reason Heinricy choice the automatic was because that was the transmission he was running during the time they were fine-tuning the car. As he stated himself, being a race car driver, he was not about to switch cars and change variables just as he was going for a lap time. If he had been driving the manual during testing, he would have stuck with the manual.

As far as I know, there has been no indication whatsoever that the automatic equipped V is the faster vehicle. We don't know that.

Your points here are pretty good, but you are stating things as if this was singular laps one upping the last. This was sessions of multiple laps we don't have times on other than when best lap times changed hands. The R&T writer obviously thinks the CTS had an advantage and is the only one who is actually giving an account of this little race.

On top of that if you watch both videos you can tell that Auberlen is quite impressed and curious about the V. Particularly in the newer video when he asks about the area Heinricy claims to have finally went through at WOT. In that newer video Auberlen also asks about how fun\easy it is to drift the V and such after explaining some of his laps suffering because of the desire to drift the M5 rather than focus on holding faster lines. You could tell he was searching for the real personality of the V since he hadn't got to drive it apparently.

I really think from all the I have read so far that this new CTS-V could out do the M5 in almost any track or racing situation. To claim that isn't significant is CRAZY!!

MacOSR
08-30-08, 10:07 AM
I really think from all the I have read so far that this new CTS-V could out do the M5 in almost any track or racing situation. To claim that isn't significant is CRAZY!!

I'm not too sure... here is the 7:52 time for the M5 from 4 years ago!!!

http://www.rhein-main.net/sixcms/detail.php/5rmn01.c.1879435.de?topic_id=731907

In english...
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-res&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhein-main.net%2Fsixcms%2Fdetail.php%2F5rmn01.c.1879435. de%3Ftopic_id%3D731907&lp=de_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

jasaero
08-30-08, 12:20 PM
I'm not too sure... here is the 7:52 time for the M5 from 4 years ago!!!

http://www.rhein-main.net/sixcms/detail.php/5rmn01.c.1879435.de?topic_id=731907

In english...
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-res&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhein-main.net%2Fsixcms%2Fdetail.php%2F5rmn01.c.1879435. de%3Ftopic_id%3D731907&lp=de_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Not sure I can believe that though as it's the only place I have EVER seen claiming such a time. Haven't even seen such a time on big time BMW fan boy site Ring lists before I don't think. Best claimed for a M3 CSL is 7:50 and that car is built to a very fine edged near race spec.

MacOSR
08-30-08, 12:36 PM
Not sure I can believe that though as it's the only place I have EVER seen claiming such a time. Haven't even seen such a time on big time BMW fan boy site Ring lists before I don't think. Best claimed for a M3 CSL is 7:50 and that car is built to a very fine edged near race spec.

Its been around for years on the BMW sites. BMW just doesn't tout those times for some reason. Also, not much is known about the time other then the driver who accomplished the time. I remember when the time came out a few years ago more information was wanted about the run but I don't know if it was ever found out. The time that is over 8 minutes that is discussed is (if memory serves correct) and every day driver like you or me that went to the ring. It would be great to get more information about that run and possibly see an interview with the driver! From what I know about the driver he is one hell of a driver - http://www.hansstuck.com/en/ !

That time, along with the most recent times seem to jive with each other. I would suspect that the M5 and the CTS-V are very close to one another on the same day/same track!

jasaero
08-30-08, 04:00 PM
Its been around for years on the BMW sites. BMW just doesn't tout those times for some reason. Also, not much is known about the time other then the driver who accomplished the time. I remember when the time came out a few years ago more information was wanted about the run but I don't know if it was ever found out. The time that is over 8 minutes that is discussed is (if memory serves correct) and every day driver like you or me that went to the ring. It would be great to get more information about that run and possibly see an interview with the driver! From what I know about the driver he is one hell of a driver - http://www.hansstuck.com/en/ !

That time, along with the most recent times seem to jive with each other. I would suspect that the M5 and the CTS-V are very close to one another on the same day/same track!

Did a bit more looking and think that time was set on racing slicks. Hard to say what else might have been done to it. Hans-Joachim Stuck is a good guy to help you set such a time also as he is a Ring master kinda like Sabine Schmitz I think. Not the most accomplished professional driver, but probably has more ring time than most anyone.

But really think the CTS-V would take the M5 given same conditions, 100% stock and same driver. Shoot a prototype X5 with 700hp has run a 7:49 with Hans-Joachim Stuck driving. Any vehicle can run amazing ring times with enough power and suspension changes. Those changes usually make for a lot less liveable vehicle than you start with though.

b4z
08-30-08, 10:32 PM
$30,000 price difference.

I can add a 2010 Camaro SS to my garage for that.

I'm more concerned bout the 6200 rpm redline which is going to take the fun out of holding gears in some turns.

EricVonHa
08-30-08, 11:47 PM
These types of tests mean absolutely nothing to me. It is, however, very reassuring that the Cadillac is holding it's own quite well on a high speed track.

I'd be VERY impressed if Heinricy was put in BOTH cars and he had an hour or two to ring out the best times from both cars... serious.

Jpjr
08-31-08, 11:14 AM
You seem to have missed my point. Matching or slightly beating another cars numbers around a track in this category while simultaneously offering a noticeably better ride, is a HUGE deal in this category IMHO.

I don't think I missed it I just disagree.

Living in snob city, CA, I know some M5 drivers and many M3 drivers. I used to have a neighbor that drove an M5, and now a coworker drives one and parks next to me at work every day. There is simply no way these guys would consider a Caddy for a "better ride" with no significant performance or technological advantage. They get free driving school in north carolina after buying their cars (like the ZR1), if that means anything.

I think the price advantage will get the V2 a much closer look this time around with similar performance stats. But I am quite certain these guys are the rule and not the exception.

MacOSR
08-31-08, 04:38 PM
Did a bit more looking and think that time was set on racing slicks.

Everything I have seen said it was 100% stock. Not sure...

I will be interested in a comparison between a 2009 M5 and CTS-V. For 09 the M5 has some power saving features...don't know much about them yet. Maybe in the 09 M5 you could do the same lap times with the air on :)

jasaero
08-31-08, 05:38 PM
I don't think I missed it I just disagree.

Living in snob city, CA, I know some M5 drivers and many M3 drivers. I used to have a neighbor that drove an M5, and now a coworker drives one and parks next to me at work every day. There is simply no way these guys would consider a Caddy for a "better ride" with no significant performance or technological advantage. They get free driving school in north carolina after buying their cars (like the ZR1), if that means anything.

I think the price advantage will get the V2 a much closer look this time around with similar performance stats. But I am quite certain these guys are the rule and not the exception.

I know brand snobs would give such ride/handling accomplishments any cred. That is a given. I am talking about M5 owners that are true auto enthusiasts and not just status type buyers. I will agree most M5 buyers are status buyers, but true enthusiasts have given the M5 that status, not the purely status buyers.

jasaero
08-31-08, 05:45 PM
Everything I have seen said it was 100% stock. Not sure...

I will be interested in a comparison between a 2009 M5 and CTS-V. For 09 the M5 has some power saving features...don't know much about them yet. Maybe in the 09 M5 you could do the same lap times with the air on :)

Seems it is an even less public run than the RS4 that supposedly ran a similar time, but was for sure on racing slicks. I figure more lists would list this time for the M5 if it was a highly credible run with proper timing equipment and such to time it. Just not buying it.

Pretty sure BMW is working mostly on stop start features. Basically the car shuts down when ever you coast or stop kinda deal. Maybe you could run A/C without power draw, but only until the stop start battery died. And all the systems for the stop start will add a bit of weight. Doubt it would be more than 50lbs, but still some weight.

Albertan
08-31-08, 10:46 PM
Something no one has commented on here is the politics of this race. Here we have two manufacturers agreeing to a "friendly" little race. Admittedly, someone has to win and someone has to lose. I'm sure GM has an M5 around to test the new V against. So they knew what the new V2 would/could do. BMW should be saluted because they put their cars up against the V2 assuming it would lose because otherwise what was GM's point? So how would relations have been if the V2 would have been 5 seconds faster? I'm sure BMW would have been less than thrilled. Ever take a customer out golfing and just beat the pants off him? Does wonders for future relationship. So I'm guessing the end result MAY have been planned a bit, like wrestling.
So BMW people can say sure they beat us but it is a 3 year old car so they don't lose any sleep over it and Caddy people, us can say look it beat the BMW.

BigFred
08-31-08, 11:06 PM
Just to add a wrinkle to the comparison. I remembered a test of an M5 with the stick being much slower: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/sedans/2007_audi_s6_vs_bmw_m5_m_b_e63_amg_comparison_test/bmw_m5_comparison_test

The reason BMW offered the M5 in a stick was due to complaints about SMG. The stick ends up being .5 seconds slower to 60. I've never driven with SMG, but I don't think I would have a problem with it. However, if you only want a stick, no auto or no SMG, the V2 would be a good deal faster.

Interesting article tidbit:

This quote is great, from a V1 perspective, on the inability to shut of the stability control in the manual: "All of this is attributable to product-liability issues, specifically, concerns about axle tramp, a.k.a. wheel hop, during full-throttle launches, which could break expensive drivetrain bits and irritate the well-heeled owners BMW would prefer to keep happy. "

CVP33
08-31-08, 11:16 PM
Well let's face it. The CTS-V didn't blow anybody away. So now what? I was NEVER buying an M5 to begin with, as you all know I can't drive a stick (or a fake stick) anyway as evidenced by my 5 blown rear differentials. Now at 12 seconds flat in the quarter and 4.0 secs 0-60 I was definitely a buyer. But reality (or R&T's perception) is that the numbers are really 12.5 seconds and 4.whatever. I ran a 12.94 in my SRT8 and with a better launch, custom tune vs. canned and cooling down the manifold should be able to get into the 12.8's this fall. So really is .30 seconds worth buying another new car?

No, of course not. But I still want one. I want one because it looks badass. I want one because it has over 500hp. I want one because the interior is light years ahead of what I currently have. I want one because I can get a blue one. My favorite color. I want one not because of what it can do vs. an M5, I want one because it's a badass American car that spits in the face of the M5. Rant off. :want:

MacOSR
09-01-08, 08:36 AM
No, of course not. But I still want one. I want one because it looks badass. I want one because it has over 500hp. I want one because the interior is light years ahead of what I currently have. I want one because I can get a blue one. My favorite color. I want one not because of what it can do vs. an M5, I want one because it's a badass American car that spits in the face of the M5. Rant off. :want:

This is one of the best quotes I have read here in years! I can't wait to see pics of your new car :yup:

chris1268
09-01-08, 10:07 AM
Well let's face it. The CTS-V didn't blow anybody away. So now what? I was NEVER buying an M5 to begin with, as you all know I can't drive a stick (or a fake stick) anyway as evidenced by my 5 blown rear differentials. Now at 12 seconds flat in the quarter and 4.0 secs 0-60 I was definitely a buyer. But reality (or R&T's perception) is that the numbers are really 12.5 seconds and 4.whatever. I ran a 12.94 in my SRT8 and with a better launch, custom tune vs. canned and cooling down the manifold should be able to get into the 12.8's this fall. So really is .30 seconds worth buying another new car?

No, of course not. But I still want one. I want one because it looks badass. I want one because it has over 500hp. I want one because the interior is light years ahead of what I currently have. I want one because I can get a blue one. My favorite color. I want one not because of what it can do vs. an M5, I want one because it's a badass American car that spits in the face of the M5. Rant off. :want:


That was an awesome speech! I am definately voting for you for president.

The Tony Show
09-01-08, 11:13 AM
CVP returns as a Champion of the V and a hero of the new guys. Oh, the irony. :lol:

(It'll be great to see you back in a Cadillac, man)

g50
09-01-08, 11:50 AM
Its been around for years on the BMW sites. BMW just doesn't tout those times for some reason. Also, not much is known about the time other then the driver who accomplished the time. I remember when the time came out a few years ago more information was wanted about the run but I don't know if it was ever found out. The time that is over 8 minutes that is discussed is (if memory serves correct) and every day driver like you or me that went to the ring. It would be great to get more information about that run and possibly see an interview with the driver! From what I know about the driver he is one hell of a driver - http://www.hansstuck.com/en/ !

That time, along with the most recent times seem to jive with each other. I would suspect that the M5 and the CTS-V are very close to one another on the same day/same track!

I would think BMW does not use that time because they think, like most, it was done on the shorter Bridge To Gauntry Nurburgring. Do you really think that the M5 is going to be around 15 sec quicker than the M6 when the M6 beats it at most other tracks?
Does any one know if the top speed limiter came in to play? That could be one reason only 1/2 sec fast at Monticello and 13 sec @ the Nurburgring, but I doubt it.
Monticello was a green track with a lot of dust and dirt and no rubber down on it yet. This would make it very difficult to put the power down.
Also because it seems to be tight I think BMW would have been better off bringing the M3. Not saying it would beat the V, but it beat the M6 by almost 3 sec and M5 by 8 sec at the Nurburgring. Unfortunately, as the V grows in weight, it moves into the 5 series class.
Thank you both Cadillac and BMW for agreeing to do the comparison. I hope you both will do it again.

CVP33
09-01-08, 12:56 PM
CVP returns as a Champion of the V and a hero of the new guys. Oh, the irony. :lol:

(It'll be great to see you back in a Cadillac, man)

I have the gift of being able to over-simplify a topic and the blissful ignorance of being able to ignore the facts (yes all of them). A sane man with my history of ownership would never and I mean never buy another Cadillac and yet, here I am. Not only ironic, down right hilarious. :D

MacOSR
09-01-08, 02:52 PM
Do you really think that the M5 is going to be around 15 sec quicker than the M6 when the M6 beats it at most other tracks?
Does any one know if the top speed limiter came in to play? That could be one reason only 1/2 sec fast at Monticello and 13 sec @ the Nurburgring, but I doubt it.

I don't know of any official BMW Ring times for the M5 or the M6. All the M5 and M6 times that I know of are done by every day drivers with the exception of the one M5 time I shared.

So, to answer your rhetorical question: Yes! Depending on the driver. Same driver, same day, the M6 is faster!

NormV
09-03-08, 07:37 AM
And what was the exit speed of the previous turn? Don't know? Just as a bad start can throw away a run of a car that may be a second faster than another, that previous turn may be naturally better for the M5 and it may have a higher exit speed. A 5mph difference would not be unheard of. And if you exit faster, you can keep that margin even if you have less hp.

At this point, who knows? It's one comparo. And like JEM said, tracks differ and the way cars behave on them differ as well...

I just read the mag from the rack. They showed MPH and lateral load for a few turns. Good point "terminal velocity"!

The last turn before the longest, main straight was 67 vs 71, V and M5 respectively. So the V did make up ground of around 4 mph down the straight.

The thing that gets me as what is going on in the turn that the M5 is 4 mph slow?

Coming out of oak tree @ VIR I think the V would see a higher top speed. :)

Norm

jasaero
09-03-08, 09:38 AM
I just read the mag from the rack. They showed MPH and lateral load for a few turns. Good point "terminal velocity"!

The last turn before the longest, main straight was 67 vs 71, V and M5 respectively. So the V did make up ground of around 4 mph down the straight.

The thing that gets me as what is going on in the turn that the M5 is 4 mph slow?

Coming out of oak tree @ VIR I think the V would see a higher top speed. :)

Norm

Interesting. Wonder if that was all car or partially a difference in the two different drivers take on the best line through the last corner before the straight on what is a very virgin track for both? Most seem to be showing the V holding better on a skidpad and making it through the slalom faster.

Still also want to know what the spring rate/ride difference is between these two cars. Also ride height differences? With the MRC it is very possible Cadillac was able to focus more on comfort/utility and still stay a bit ahead of the M5's they had in the fleet.

terminal Velocity
09-03-08, 11:28 AM
Thanks Norm. Someone brought up another point in another thread. That test was in July. Most of the mags are testing in the summer heat. The new V put down that blistering pace at the 'Ring in early May. The downfall of forced induction?

Blackout
09-03-08, 12:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times

CTS-V Gen 2 7:59
M6 E63 8:04
M5 E60 8:13

NormV
09-03-08, 03:32 PM
Good ole German engineering. Don't get me wrong as I would like the home team to stay on top but also like to look at reality. :)

Norm


Interesting. Wonder if that was all car or partially a difference in the two different drivers take on the best line through the last corner before the straight on what is a very virgin track for both? Most seem to be showing the V holding better on a skidpad and making it through the slalom faster.

Still also want to know what the spring rate/ride difference is between these two cars. Also ride height differences? With the MRC it is very possible Cadillac was able to focus more on comfort/utility and still stay a bit ahead of the M5's they had in the fleet.

CVP33
09-03-08, 05:12 PM
I just read the mag from the rack. They showed MPH and lateral load for a few turns. Good point "terminal velocity"!

The last turn before the longest, main straight was 67 vs 71, V and M5 respectively. So the V did make up ground of around 4 mph down the straight.

The thing that gets me as what is going on in the turn that the M5 is 4 mph slow?

Coming out of oak tree @ VIR I think the V would see a higher top speed. :)

Norm

Great point. Having run the full course at VIR with the big boys (V1's w/ great drivers), I can tell you that hanging with the V crowd on the straights was not my issue. Especially coming out of Oak Tree. I gathered up more than my share of Porches, BMW's and Vettes. Throw in a couple of turns and my man marbles shrunk in a hurry and I was getting passed big time.

concorso
09-05-08, 08:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times

CTS-V Gen 2 7:59
M6 E63 8:04
M5 E60 8:13 Again, just like the M5, Ive seen a faster posted time for the M6 then 8:04. Off-hand, I think it was 7:50 or so. It was right around the same time as the E46 M3 CSL.

Id love to see all the manufacturers use 1 driver, Sabine Schmidt. She knows that 'ring better then anyone, and using her would mean theres 1 less variable and the new times would be more comparable, imo.

g50
09-06-08, 09:52 AM
I don't know of any official BMW Ring times for the M5 or the M6. All the M5 and M6 times that I know of are done by every day drivers with the exception of the one M5 time I shared.

So, to answer your rhetorical question: Yes! Depending on the driver. Same driver, same day, the M6 is faster!

Then by these numbers that puts the m3 @ 7:44 or a little better. Not saying that is impossible, look at the GTR, I just find it strange that BMW would let Cadillac do a press release "Fastest 4 door production car @ the Ring," when their factory driver, Stuck had gone 7:52. I sure would like to see what Kubica or Heidfeld could do.

No way is Saurma an "every day driver." Hell Heinricy is a GM executive and does not have near the track time that others have.
I guess we need to wait until Saurma gets his hands on the V.

Bridge to Gantry is around 30 sec a lap slower and is the only way to do the Nurburgring without closing or renting the track.

Now, it seems they allow Saurma and Sport Auto to use most of the track for their test, but are restricted at pit out. This accounts for a 7 sec quicker lap than a full lap. Puts his time at 8:20 in the M5. I am sure I saw somewhere that top speed was limited.

I don't think the M5 did a full lap like most have said on the M5 boards or they would post the time and claim they have the fastest sedan. Don't tell me the don't care or they would not spend hundreds of millions in F1 to see who can go the fastest. They race, unlike Ferrari, for road car development and to sell cars.
Until BMW or someone can tell us the conditions of the 7:52, track length, production tyers, etc. and to be fair, if limiter was on or off I am going to believe that this was on the shorter track.

7:59 was a full flying lap that just hit rev limiter @ 175mph. It is going to be hard to compare that even when Sport auto gets one.
http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/2008/08/31.html#a2498 (http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/2008/08/31.html#a2498)

Sport Auto if you are listening, please compare apples to apples.