: 09 V whomps on M5 AGAIN today @ 5pm EST on Motorweek PBS



NormV
03-21-09, 09:22 AM
I'm sure they will have a video on their website:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/video/roadtests.shtml

The 09 V beats the M5 review after review. This time three tenths and 2 MPH in the quarter mile and half a second per lap...this is getting old for the wiener schnitzel boys! Nothing but accolades for the V aside from brakes. They said the M5 lack the umpf out of the corners and it's what we've known all along that torque rules. The V was an automatic and the M5 was a "proper transmission" 6-speed. :)

Norm

SLPR 6.0L
03-21-09, 10:00 AM
just more reassurance

62Jeff
03-21-09, 10:15 AM
I'm sure they will have a video on their website:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/video/roadtests.shtml

The 09 V beats the M5 review after review. This time three tenths and 2 MPH in the quarter mile and half a second per lap...this is getting old for the wiener schnitzel boys! Nothing but accolades for the V aside from brakes. They said the M5 lack the umpf out of the corners and it's what we've known all along that torque rules. The V was an automatic and the M5 was a "proper transmission" 6-speed. :)

Norm

Cool.

Motorweek comes on at different times around the US depending on when the local PBS station airs it. In Houston, it's 11 am CDT on Sundays.

Was there something about the CTS-V on that referenced web link? I sure can't find it.

OldRoadDawg
03-21-09, 10:39 AM
Don't think the video is up yet, but here's the written review:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2829b.shtml

62Jeff
03-21-09, 11:02 AM
Don't think the video is up yet, but here's the written review:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2829b.shtml

Thanks! :thumbsup:

Based on the tone of their review , it sounds like they really want to call the BMW a better car overall based on feel, but can't because the CTS-V managed to win each of the competitions, albeit with less finesse than they wanted.

NormV
03-21-09, 12:45 PM
Pretty much sums up what I heard in the review. :)

Norm


Thanks! :thumbsup:

Based on the tone of their review , it sounds like they really want to call the BMW a better car overall based on feel, but can't because the CTS-V managed to win each of the competitions, albeit with less finesse than they wanted.

M5eatr
03-21-09, 01:03 PM
"The M5 however, plays a different game. More boxer than brawler, it steps into the ring expecting to go all 15 rounds. Relying more on style than flash and technique over punching power, the M5 is still the ultimate driving machine. "

Bunch of horsecrap. Give me punching power anyday. Someone needs to tell this guy boxing is over. It's mixed martial arts. Brawn, speed, tougness. All without the fixer of crazy hair Don King.

NormV
03-21-09, 03:48 PM
I think they tried to cover up the facts about the V. It is PBS and have to appeal to a large audience without picking sides. It's the nicest way to say they were close. :)

Norm

Fubar75207
03-21-09, 04:30 PM
We got a couple of runs in today with my Dallas car club, a stock V v/s stock M5... you know the out come. From a 40-120 roll, the V pulled 2 cars on the M5. We should have a video up soon.

GM-4-LIFE
03-21-09, 07:48 PM
How can anyone or any publication say the M5 is superior over the V?

I have driven both and there is no comparison in my book!

The V wins hands down! I can't believe BMW charges that much more than a CTS-V when the BMW has a V10 with 383 ft-lbs. of torque! BMW has to come up with a better engineering effort to produce torque like Mercedes/AMG does.

SG

JFJr
03-21-09, 09:41 PM
The V wins hands down! I can't believe BMW charges that much more than a CTS-V when the BMW has a V10 with 383 ft-lbs. of torque! BMW has to come up with a better engineering effort to produce torque like Mercedes/AMG does.SG
We really have to applaud American engineering for this achievement, as well as the awesome Corvette ZR1, but the Germans will be back. I hope that GM will "reassign" its engineers to the task of staying on top. There has to be more performance in the LSA engine in street-legal form, if needed, not to mention the other suspension and handling benefits that trickle down from Le Mans and SCCA racing. GM is up to the task if it's not forced to build sorry electric cars.

thebigjimsho
03-21-09, 09:44 PM
I'm sure BMW could put out torque if it wanted to. But they choose to go with smaller powerplants that rev high and make high hp. The M5 was certainly the best sports sedan of its size for a while.

Even if it's as good a total package as the V, it's not as fast. Whether BMW wants to address that or not is up to them.

But I've driven the V2 and I love it. Not being able to buy a $90k car helps in the decision...

marktanner
03-22-09, 01:49 PM
BMW has been building M5s for more than 20 years ( I have a '93 that I plan to keep forever- last handbuilt M car). The M5 is also 300 pounds lighter than the V2, has better weight distribution (and I would bet a lower center of gravity, too). So, I can believe that the M5 has slightly greater handling finesse than the V2. The lack of sledgehammer torque in the M5 also makes it easier to add and modulate power at and after apexes ( that's one of the reasons a Porsche GT3 is easier to drive than a GT2). These characteristics are very important at Roebling, which is very much a finesse track much more so than a point and squirt track. Plus, the sequence from turns 3 through 6 requires frequent and sometimes heavy braking, with little cooling time in-between the corners (I've seen brakes fade by turn 6). Brake modulation there is also important. If Cadillac thought the brakes were perfect, they wouldn't offer the track package ( if they ever do).

Does this take away from Cadillac's achievement? In my opinion, no. On other tracks, the V2's superior power and torque could be a serious advantage, especially if there is adequate time and speed to cool the brakes. The Nurburgring is one such track, and Road Atlanta is another. The real achievement is that Cadillac does all this for $30,000 less and with much less racing heritage. It beats Mercedes, Audi, and Jaguar, too.

In reality, these cars will rarely be used on a track anyway. They are just too big, and there are better choices for track work. Day to day liveability is more important in the real world, and here the V2 excels. The V2 is much better looking inside and out. It doesn't have i-Drive or crazy turn signals. It gets better gas mileage ( though not by much). It rides better, and the V2's automatic is MUCH smoother in toodle-around mode than the the auto mode of the M5's SMG. By the way, new M5s have terrible resale value, and starting from $90K+ that's a BIG hit. "M" parts are notoriusly expensive once out of warranty, and you just know that engine has to be hideously expensive. Motorweek didn't talk about these items, but the market I think will, should GM survive.

GM-4-LIFE
03-22-09, 01:54 PM
I tried looking for it on youtube and couldn't find it. I even tried looking on my TV Cable box's guide and nothing on Speed or PBS.

Any idea where we can find this video?

SG

OldRoadDawg
03-22-09, 02:44 PM
From the written review:

"What the M5 does have is far superior brakes: They were rock solid and fade free. While 60 to 0 stops produced nearly identical results, the Caddy offered less feedback through the pedal and less confidence overall."

:hmm: I have no experience driving an M5, but have driven the V2 at Monticello and was very impressed with the brakes. Significant upgrade from my V1... which are quite good.

So are the M5 brakes that fantastic or just more elite snobbism on the part of the author of this article (who speaks with 'forked tongue')?

gotapex
03-22-09, 06:48 PM
From the written review:

"What the M5 does have is far superior brakes: They were rock solid and fade free. While 60 to 0 stops produced nearly identical results, the Caddy offered less feedback through the pedal and less confidence overall."

:hmm: I have no experience driving an M5, but have driven the V2 at Monticello and was very impressed with the brakes. Significant upgrade from my V1... which are quite good.

So are the M5 brakes that fantastic or just more elite snobbism on the part of the author of this article (who speaks with 'forked tongue')?

I found the stock M5 brakes reasonably easy to get mushy on a roadcourse. With proper fluids and better pads (like they do on the 'Ring Taxi), they're great. Bone stock? I definitely wouldn't call them fade free.

thebigjimsho
03-22-09, 07:15 PM
The V1's brakes are amazing enuff. With all the development and track testing the V2 has, I would be stunned if the brakes were not that much better than the V1s.

The V2's brakes felt great to me...

Fubar75207
03-22-09, 07:56 PM
Sorry for getting this up so late.

71oVtYI6kDA

Hawkeye2
03-22-09, 09:05 PM
Gotta love American muscle. No substitute for torque!

jvp
03-22-09, 09:58 PM
Sorry for getting this up so late.

I love retards that do stuff like this on public roads.

Professional drivers on a closed course. Riiiiiiiight.

jas

Fubar75207
03-22-09, 10:13 PM
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

jvp
03-22-09, 10:18 PM
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

So which closed course was this done on?

And how much were the drivers paid to do this? How many other driving gigs (like races, etc) have they done where they were paid? That is, of course, the definition of "professional".

Morons.

jas

Fubar75207
03-22-09, 10:30 PM
And calling people names on the internet is intelligent? Okay.

thebigjimsho
03-22-09, 10:37 PM
no. but it's cheap...

Fubar75207
03-22-09, 10:56 PM
Fair enough... this isn't the race video crowd then.

I thought you guys would be really interested in how Dallas_Darren ($160,000+ Stroked M5) faired against a pullied CTS-V ($75,000). I suppose I can just let you know how the race goes when we get to a drag strip. :cheers:

62Jeff
03-22-09, 11:22 PM
I thought you guys would be really interested in how Dallas_Darren ($160,000+ Stroked M5) faired against a pullied CTS-V ($75,000).

??? Video claims stock versus stock.

Fubar75207
03-22-09, 11:38 PM
That is a stock v/s stock race. I have ordered a few mods for my V and look forward to speaking with Darren about a mod v/s mod run soon. Whenever waitforme gets his his new merchandise shipped out. Looking forward to great things.

Fubar75207
03-22-09, 11:39 PM
Maybe we can get to the track so that I can post it here.

tblack
03-22-09, 11:55 PM
Thanks for the vid! Awesome to see! Keep em coming!

CIWS
03-23-09, 12:43 AM
Fair enough... this isn't the race video crowd then.

I thought you guys would be really interested in how Dallas_Darren ($160,000+ Stroked M5) faired against a pullied CTS-V ($75,000). I suppose I can just let you know how the race goes when we get to a drag strip. :cheers:

I'm always interested in seeing the results of stuff. Thanks for posting Fubar. :thumbsup:

Silverspeed
03-23-09, 12:46 AM
So which closed course was this done on?

And how much were the drivers paid to do this? How many other driving gigs (like races, etc) have they done where they were paid? That is, of course, the definition of "professional".

Morons.

jas

:rolleyes:

atdeneve
03-23-09, 11:23 AM
From the written review:

"What the M5 does have is far superior brakes: They were rock solid and fade free. While 60 to 0 stops produced nearly identical results, the Caddy offered less feedback through the pedal and less confidence overall."

:hmm: I have no experience driving an M5, but have driven the V2 at Monticello and was very impressed with the brakes. Significant upgrade from my V1... which are quite good.

So are the M5 brakes that fantastic or just more elite snobbism on the part of the author of this article (who speaks with 'forked tongue')?

Pretty sure it's the other way around. Like, literally, the other around. The V brakes are rock solid. I've heard the M5's brakes can get mushy when really worked on.



And, Fubar, if you got vids, we'll take em...

Fubar75207
03-23-09, 12:31 PM
I am going to make it a point to beat Darren's Stroked M5 (with a minimal number of modifications). Darren is a good guy but the M5 Boards have taken way to much pride in the fact that a fully stroked M5 can out pull a stock V with 1500 miles on it. Hell, I know a couple of Honda civic's that could out run both of us. It is just all the hype that surrounds the CTS-V right now. Regardless of the hype, I plan to put < $3,500 in the V and out run my friend Darren.


Payback is coming. :lildevil: I'll be sure to post the video.

Fubar75207
03-23-09, 12:38 PM
Pretty sure it's the other way around. Like, literally, the other around. The V brakes are rock solid. I've heard the M5's brakes can get mushy when really worked on.

I traded an M6 for the CTS-V and I can tell you truthfully that the brakes on the M6 felt superior. The M6 felt like it was much quicker to respond to peddle modulation. I don't think brake fade is the issue. I think the Vs just lack the initial bite that you get with an M class car. I have looked for ways to improve the Vs current setup and all I can come up with is sticker pads.




And, Fubar, if you got vids, we'll take em...

Will do. :thumbsup:

neuronbob
03-23-09, 12:46 PM
Thanks for the video. :worship:

concorso
03-23-09, 02:50 PM
I love retards that do stuff like this on public roads.

Professional drivers on a closed course. Riiiiiiiight.

jasApparently we have Jesus in our midst. The only way you get to be that sanctimonious is if you can prove you've never street raced...or even hammered the throttle on a public road...

concorso
03-23-09, 02:52 PM
I traded an M6 for the CTS-V and I can tell you truthfully that the brakes on the M6 felt superior. The M6 felt like it was much quicker to respond to peddle modulation. I don't think brake fade is the issue. I think the Vs just lack the initial bite that you get with an M class car. I have looked for ways to improve the Vs current setup and all I can come up with is sticker pads.





Will do. :thumbsup:The M6 is almost 500 lbs lighter then the V, tho, so I would assume that would influence that.

jvp
03-23-09, 03:22 PM
Apparently we have Jesus in our midst. The only way you get to be that sanctimonious is if you can prove you've never street raced...or even hammered the throttle on a public road...

When I was younger and stupid (now I'm not so young) I had certainly dropped the hammer a few times on public highways.

But I wasn't dumb enough to film it and publish it.

Nor was I ballsy enough to claim that I was a professional driver performing those stunts on a closed circuit.

I don't do stupid things like that any more. I keep my stupidity on the race track, where you should, too.

jas

Fubar75207
03-23-09, 03:38 PM
Your displeasure is duly noted.

Moving on.

Kadonny
03-23-09, 04:11 PM
Can we stop the Sunday preaching and move on please. Thanks.

^caddyowner
03-23-09, 05:03 PM
Enjoy the time in 'front', the new M5 will be out next year.

ericpd
03-23-09, 07:42 PM
How can anyone or any publication say the M5 is superior over the V?

I have driven both and there is no comparison in my book!

The V wins hands down! I can't believe BMW charges that much more than a CTS-V when the BMW has a V10 with 383 ft-lbs. of torque! BMW has to come up with a better engineering effort to produce torque like Mercedes/AMG does.

SG

Uhmmm, actually, the 383 torques and 500 bhp is a testiment of their engineering prowess. That power plant was design to be a screamer,... a singer so to speak. It takes its que from F1 plants that prioritize high revs and picking up those revs quickly,... very very quickly. They were, by design, playing that small displacement, high revving, power game. Just think of it as a one of those 2.8 liter F1 V8's that manufacture in excess of 900 bhp and around 300 torques,... but sing gloriously at around 19,000 rpms. The 6.2 liter plants in the CTS-V and Mercs are just plain bruts, compliment of their long stroke as compared to the V10's tinny-winny stroke. Big stroke,... big torque, small revs. Small stroke,... small torque, big revs.

I'll take torque everyday of the week over revs,... until it's time to do some serious tracking. On the street, there's no room to get the V10's comfortably into its element. That equals no fun. That's why I bought a CTS-V.

ericpd
03-23-09, 08:54 PM
I traded an M6 for the CTS-V and I can tell you truthfully that the brakes on the M6 felt superior. The M6 felt like it was much quicker to respond to peddle modulation. I don't think brake fade is the issue. I think the Vs just lack the initial bite that you get with an M class car. I have looked for ways to improve the Vs current setup and all I can come up with is sticker pads.





Will do. :thumbsup:

I've read that the best and most direct way to bring the brakes up to snuff is to gut out all the rubber hoses in the system and replace with stainless steel. Balooning is the biggest reason for the V's brakes not performing up to their name sake.

ctsv5005
03-23-09, 09:41 PM
check out the video and please comment. thanks


YouTube - M5 vs CTSV

Leadfoot09
03-23-09, 10:03 PM
Enjoy the time in 'front', the new M5 will be out next year.

Actually, the F10 M5 will not be in the U.S. until the 2012 model year at the earliest. It is released at least a year after the regular "5er"--and Europe gets it a year before the U.S. I know from experience--I have one of the first E60 M5's that was delivered in the U.S. at the end of Oct '05. It was a long wait...

I also have an '09 CTS-V and have to say that it is a very fine automobile that will hold it's own over the next few years.

62Jeff
03-23-09, 10:04 PM
Comments seem to begin around post 19 in this thread
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-v-series-forum-2009/164762-09-v-whomps-m5-again-today-2.html

^caddyowner
03-23-09, 10:28 PM
Actually, the F10 M5 will not be in the U.S. until the 2012 model year at the earliest. It is released at least a year after the regular "5er"--and Europe gets it a year before the U.S. I know from experience--I have one of the first E60 M5's that was delivered in the U.S. at the end of Oct '05. It was a long wait...

I also have an '09 CTS-V and have to say that it is a very fine automobile that will hold it's own over the next few years.

Yes, I stand corrected. The next gen 5 series will probably ship in 2011 and the m close to a full year later. But, according to wikipedia, the M was released at the same time for EU and US. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_F10 )
Also, consider that technically, the e60 is based on 2005 technology. So performance wise, it still is quite advanced.

Fubar75207
03-23-09, 10:52 PM
I've read that the best and most direct way to bring the brakes up to snuff is to gut out all the rubber hoses in the system and replace with stainless steel. Balooning is the biggest reason for the V's brakes not performing up to their name sake.


I thought I would try that approach as well but when I spoke to Jessie (waitforme) he said that the '09 Vs are actually SS Braided lines with rubber over them... so changing the lines would accomplish nothing. The only thing left to do is look for a sticker brake pad... that also means more dust.

ericpd
03-24-09, 12:13 AM
I also have an '09 CTS-V and have to say that it is a very fine automobile that will hold it's own over the next few years.

That's the spirit mate!

Fubar75207
03-24-09, 12:16 AM
Uhmmm, actually, the 383 torques and 500 bhp is a testiment of their engineering prowess. That power plant was design to be a screamer,... a singer so to speak. It takes its que from F1 plants that prioritize high revs and picking up those revs quickly,... very very quickly. They were, by design, playing that small displacement, high revving, power game. Just think of it as a one of those 2.8 liter F1 V8's that manufacture in excess of 900 bhp and around 300 torques,... but sing gloriously at around 19,000 rpms. The 6.2 liter plants in the CTS-V and Mercs are just plain bruts, compliment of their long stroke as compared to the V10's tinny-winny stroke. Big stroke,... big torque, small revs. Small stroke,... small torque, big revs.

I'll take torque everyday of the week over revs,... until it's time to do some serious tracking. On the street, there's no room to get the V10's comfortably into its element. That equals no fun. That's why I bought a CTS-V.

Very well said... I agree 100%

CadV
03-24-09, 01:10 AM
I am going to make it a point to beat Darren's Stroked M5 (with a minimal number of modifications). Darren is a good guy but the M5 Boards have taken way to much pride in the fact that a fully stroked M5 can out pull a stock V with 1500 miles on it. Hell, I know a couple of Honda civic's that could out run both of us. It is just all the hype that surrounds the CTS-V right now. Regardless of the hype, I plan to put < $3,500 in the V and out run my friend Darren.


Payback is coming. :lildevil: I'll be sure to post the video.

I was going to race him too. FYI his car is making about 560rwhp so your gonna need a pulley mod. Hell lets both get the mods and race him. He can get v raped twice :P.

ericpd
03-24-09, 02:04 AM
I thought I would try that approach as well but when I spoke to Jessie (waitforme) he said that the '09 Vs are actually SS Braided lines with rubber over them... so changing the lines would accomplish nothing. The only thing left to do is look for a sticker brake pad... that also means more dust.

Really? That's interesting! I heard/read almost the exact opposite. Hope your source is right and mine are bogus. Pads are a lot cheaper than replacing brake tubing,... that's for sure! Have you heard that the elusive performance package,... the option sporting the two piece ceramic brakes and diff cooler, that was suppose to be an option for 09, will be an option for '10? If that's true, wonder what that part number would cost us, and if it can be bolted onto our 09's come time to do pads and rotors?

TaVern
03-24-09, 02:16 AM
How many times are we going to see this video?

LV_V
03-24-09, 03:19 AM
Actually replacing brake lines is pretty cheap. Cheaper than high performance racing pads...

Just do both :highfive:

ericpd
03-24-09, 03:55 AM
Actually replacing brake lines is pretty cheap. Cheaper than high performance racing pads...

Just do both :highfive:

I'm learning everyday!

Hawkeye2
03-24-09, 06:10 AM
As many times as you want. Just keep hitting the play button!

Leadfoot09
03-24-09, 12:22 PM
. But, according to wikipedia, the M was released at the same time for EU and US. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_F10 )

Are they saying that the F10 M5 will be released concurrently in both markets? If so, that would be a new approach for BMW and a welcomed one for us on this side of the pond. It was frustrating to read on the m5board all the great experiences the europeans were having with the car a year before we could get our hands on one!

And I agree about the technical aspects of the M5 vs the V. The S62 engine is an engineering marvel and a blast to drive fast at higher revs. The LSA engine is just a brute looking for a fight. They both have their strengths and are different enough that I am keeping both for the time being.

haterinc
03-24-09, 12:23 PM
with the negative bs in the other post, i don't blame him.

chris1268
03-24-09, 12:59 PM
Love it

TaVern
03-24-09, 01:03 PM
with the negative bs in the other post, i don't blame him.

The OP of this thread is not the same member who posted this video in the other thread.

And it was just a couple of guys with different opinions :)

haterinc
03-24-09, 01:25 PM
gotcha i see what you mean. i found the other thread opinions completely hypocritical unless they've never gone over the speed limit or got deep into the tach of their car vs a rival commuter in a formidable vehicle. not sure why someone would want a 556hp grocery getter...

Vrocks
03-24-09, 02:04 PM
. But, according to wikipedia, the M was released at the same time for EU and US. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_F10 )

Are they saying that the F10 M5 will be released concurrently in both markets? If so, that would be a new approach for BMW and a welcomed one for us on this side of the pond. It was frustrating to read on the m5board all the great experiences the europeans were having with the car a year before we could get our hands on one!

And I agree about the technical aspects of the M5 vs the V. The S62 engine is an engineering marvel and a blast to drive fast at higher revs. The LSA engine is just a brute looking for a fight. They both have their strengths and are different enough that I am keeping both for the time being.

The SC and intercooler design on the V (and ZR1) is very advanced.

The funny thing about "engineering marvels" is that they tend to be finicky - based on past experiences, BMW is the first brand that comes to mind for odd problems. I'd take the LSA or LS9 any day of the week over the S62 - they out perform it, and I'm sure they're more dependable.

Just my .02 - not meant to be an attack on the M.

thebigjimsho
03-24-09, 02:19 PM
The SC and intercooler design on the V (and ZR1) is very advanced.

The funny thing about "engineering marvels" is that they tend to be finicky - based on past experiences, BMW is the first brand that comes to mind for odd problems. I'd take the LSA or LS9 any day of the week over the S62 - they out perform it, and I'm sure they're more dependable.

Just my .02 - not meant to be an attack on the M.
Have you driven both? I've always said that I love my LS6. But what it doesn't have is the absolute willingness to rev to redline like my old V6 SHO powerplant did. One thing I miss, even with all that extra power, is the way that car revved. Everytime you got in the SHO, you wanted to redline it. I miss that...

atdeneve
03-24-09, 02:51 PM
Really? That's interesting! I heard/read almost the exact opposite. Hope your source is right and mine are bogus. Pads are a lot cheaper than replacing brake tubing,... that's for sure! Have you heard that the elusive performance package,... the option sporting the two piece ceramic brakes and diff cooler, that was suppose to be an option for 09, will be an option for '10? If that's true, wonder what that part number would cost us, and if it can be bolted onto our 09's come time to do pads and rotors?

Ceramic brakes were never on the table...

Fubar75207
03-24-09, 03:13 PM
Cadillac may have scratch the 2 peice system because Brembo made this option available (which is what all the Vs currently have):


The CTS-V, with its captivating contours and unmistakable styling, is the first American motor car to feature the sophisticated engineering of co-cast brake discs made by Brembo. The co-cast disc is a pioneering product designed to combine the braking efficiency of cast iron (used for the disc proper) with the natural lightness of aluminium (used for the hat), and manufactured in one seamless operation thanks to an innovative casting technology.

ericpd
03-24-09, 03:14 PM
. But, according to wikipedia, the M was released at the same time for EU and US. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_F10 )

Are they saying that the F10 M5 will be released concurrently in both markets? If so, that would be a new approach for BMW and a welcomed one for us on this side of the pond. It was frustrating to read on the m5board all the great experiences the europeans were having with the car a year before we could get our hands on one!

And I agree about the technical aspects of the M5 vs the V. The S62 engine is an engineering marvel and a blast to drive fast at higher revs. The LSA engine is just a brute looking for a fight. They both have their strengths and are different enough that I am keeping both for the time being.

I'd like to clarify something. Earlier I made a comment about how I'd prefer a torquer all the up to the point where serious tracking was on the agenda. I gotta qualify that. Don't make the mistake and think that plants with outrageous torques can't hold their own on the track. They absolutely can,... they just do it differently using a different strategy. If we all can close our eyes and go back in time,... a time when Jaguar, Auto Union (Audi) and Fararri were dominating the 24 hours of LeMans. They were all using plants with dozens of lawn mower sized pistons,... I'm talking 3.0 liter V12's. Then came Ford with their 7 liter brute, which ended all that non-sense. Quickly followed by Porsche with the 917, which employed a monster 7.6 liter boxer 12. They read Ford's book and basically stroked their 3.2 flat 6 to 3.8 liters and then glued two of them together. Point is,... I didn't want my comment to give the impression that plants following the S62 were the only plants for tracking. Brutes own a place on the wall as well.

But you know what? Same battle is going on today. Look at Audi's new R15. That thing red lines a little over 5k. I'm not sure, but I believe it just won the first round of the American LeMans if I'm not mistaken.

ericpd
03-24-09, 03:18 PM
Ceramic brakes were never on the table...

They weren't? Maybe I made a quick assumption. I did read that the option offered Corvette breaks which were heads and shoulders above the standard Brembo's. Maybe I just assumed the Corvette they were speaking of was the ZR1,... since there's already a good deal of DNA these cars share. But they were supposed to be 2 piece though,... right?

jvp
03-24-09, 03:23 PM
Cadillac may have scratch the 2 peice system because Brembo made this option available (which is what all the Vs currently have)

Actually, my understanding is that Brembo never delivered the 2-piece rotor due to issues with hat attachment/assembly process. GM's been expecting the 2-piece (Al hat, Fe disk) since before the V was released. For whatever reason, Brembo never delivered.

Will they? Unsure. Is the option completely off the table? Dunno.

jas

jvp
03-24-09, 03:27 PM
They weren't?

Nope. The option for the V was supposed to be a 2-piece (Al hat, Fe disk) rotor, and red calipers that are otherwise identical to the silver ones on the V. As for the "track brakes", that's it. No ceramic rotors were ever considered (seriously) for production for the V.

As for the Corvette, again, the ceramics aren't an option for any of the models. They are standard (the only, actually) on the ZR1.

jas

Leadfoot09
03-24-09, 03:32 PM
The SC and intercooler design on the V (and ZR1) is very advanced.

The funny thing about "engineering marvels" is that they tend to be finicky - based on past experiences, BMW is the first brand that comes to mind for odd problems. I'd take the LSA or LS9 any day of the week over the S62 - they out perform it, and I'm sure they're more dependable.

Just my .02 - not meant to be an attack on the M.

Your opinion is certainly not an "attack." However, I must say that since the S62 produces 100hp/liter without induction, using VANOS, etc, it is more of a technical marvel to me than a pushrod SOHC 6.2 SC producing 638hp or a 7 ltr producing 505hp. I believe that is why the S62 won international motor of the year awards 3 years in a row.

I just had the M5 on Road Atlanta for 2 days a week ago and I must say that the instant throttle response (and ablility to modulate the throttle) of the NA motor is still preferable to me on the track (compared to the SC V motor). Also, I have had the M5 on the track for 10 events in 3 years and have never had a problem. I just did the rear brakes (free under maintenance warranty) and have replaced the tires twice (in 20K miles of driving and said track events), but that has been it. The car has not been "finicky" at all in my experience.

Again, I own both, so I don't think I am off base giving my honest feedback. The instant torque availability of the V is very intoxicating and makes it hard to make my right foot behave itself. As I stated, this is the main difference between the M5 and V. You have to really wind out the M5 (which is a lot of fun) to get into the power band. Actually, that has been an issue for me as I learn to drive the V--I tend to run into the rev limiter because I am used to the 8300rpm limiter in the M5.

I really like both cars, and I applaud GM for showing that they have the ability to challenge any of the world's manufacturers when they put their minds to it (and at a very good price, to boot!).

jvp
03-24-09, 03:36 PM
However, I must say that since the S62 produces 100hp/liter without induction, using VANOS, etc, it is more of a technical marvel to me than a pushrod SOC 6.2 SC producing 638hp or a 7 ltr producing 505hp. I believe that is why the S62 won international motor of the year awards 3 years in a row.

Woo Hoo! The ol' Specific Output argument card. Here in the states, specific output is a useless point of comparison for engines. HP/L doesn't matter here. HP/weight does.

That GM can continue to produce "old fashioned" OHV engines of substantial displacement (but tiny physical size and mass), which crank out significant HP, most while maintaining phenomenal mileage numbers, is a "technical marvel".

Results talk. Specific output isn't a result. It's something the Europeans need to use to compare their engines because they're taxed on engine displacement over there.

jas

jwa999
03-24-09, 03:43 PM
BMW brake setup has always been grabby. I remember test driving some used BMWs for my wife at the dealer and when I came back to my 996 porsche turbo, I literally thought something was wrong with the brakes. The porsche brakes require a lot more effort, which allows you better control. The caddy brakes are similar, but they actually feel more solid than the porsche. On some occasions I could have used a little more braking power in the porsche.
On my test drive in the cts-v I was admiring how fast the rpms came up and the tracer lights started flashing, the next moment I look up there's a bmw crossing the road. He didn't realize how fast we were coming up. Slammed the brakes as hard as I could and they worked brilliantly!

Leadfoot09
03-24-09, 04:10 PM
Woo Hoo! The ol' Specific Output argument card. Here in the states, specific output is a useless point of comparison for engines. HP/L doesn't matter here. HP/weight does.

That GM can continue to produce "old fashioned" OHV engines of substantial displacement (but tiny physical size and mass), which crank out significant HP, most while maintaining phenomenal mileage numbers, is a "technical marvel".

Results talk. Specific output isn't a result. It's something the Europeans need to use to compare their engines because they're taxed on engine displacement over there.

jas

You seem very knowledgeable on this subject. I don't seem to be able to determine this from your profile, so I have to ask: which one of these cars do you own? And by the way, I have not seen any "phenomenal" mileage numbers from my V--they are exactly the same as the M5.

And to me it is more than just "results." It is the way you interact with the car. The steering feel and feedback on the M5 is hard to beat--as well as the sound of the V10 hitting 8300rpms with the Eisenmann exhaust I have on it. (The stock exhaust sound of the V is better than the stock sound of the M5 in my opinion, however.) On the other hand, I like the firm feel of the V's brake pedal (more than the M5) and I feel it is easier to modulate in decreasing radius turns.

As I have said before, there is no black and white answer that "this car is better than that car." They are both good in their own right. If you need to bash european cars to feel better about yourself, have at it!:cheers:

jvp
03-24-09, 04:17 PM
You seem very knowledgeable on this subject. I don't seem to be able to determine this from your profile, so I have to ask: which one of these cars do you own? And by the way, I have not seen any "phenomenal" mileage numbers from my V--they are exactly the same as the M5.

I've owned Corvettes since the mid 90s, and currently own an '07 Z06. Any 505HP-engine that can manage 24-26MPG at highway speeds is, point in fact, a technical marvel.

(Yes, I know it has to do with the Vette's aero and the gearing as well).

The ZR1 and the CTS-V are the first of the SBC-powered GM cars (sold in the states) to get "bad" mileage. The current crop of base Corvettes and Z06s are all testaments to GM's ability to take an "old fashioned" non-technical-marvel and turn it into one.


And to me it is more than just "results." It is the way you interact with the car. The steering feel and feedback on the M5 is hard to beat

That has little to do with how "technically marvelous" the engine is.


If you need to bash european cars to feel better about yourself, have at it!

Ah, but careful reading of my post will show you that I'm not bashing European vehicles. Rather I'm taking apart your "technical marvel" argument that's based on specific output.

In Europe, specific output matters due to taxation issues.

In North America, power-to-weight matters.

jas

^caddyowner
03-24-09, 04:18 PM
I guess the M was a manual trans.. was the CTS an auto?

Looked like the second run was much closer.
I imagine the start is critical when your talking these speeds and especially the torque advantage of the LSA.

Vrocks
03-25-09, 10:49 AM
Your opinion is certainly not an "attack." However, I must say that since the S62 produces 100hp/liter without induction, using VANOS, etc, it is more of a technical marvel to me than a pushrod SOHC 6.2 SC producing 638hp or a 7 ltr producing 505hp. I believe that is why the S62 won international motor of the year awards 3 years in a row.

I just had the M5 on Road Atlanta for 2 days a week ago and I must say that the instant throttle response (and ablility to modulate the throttle) of the NA motor is still preferable to me on the track (compared to the SC V motor). Also, I have had the M5 on the track for 10 events in 3 years and have never had a problem. I just did the rear brakes (free under maintenance warranty) and have replaced the tires twice (in 20K miles of driving and said track events), but that has been it. The car has not been "finicky" at all in my experience.

Again, I own both, so I don't think I am off base giving my honest feedback. The instant torque availability of the V is very intoxicating and makes it hard to make my right foot behave itself. As I stated, this is the main difference between the M5 and V. You have to really wind out the M5 (which is a lot of fun) to get into the power band. Actually, that has been an issue for me as I learn to drive the V--I tend to run into the rev limiter because I am used to the 8300rpm limiter in the M5.

I really like both cars, and I applaud GM for showing that they have the ability to challenge any of the world's manufacturers when they put their minds to it (and at a very good price, to boot!).
I didn't say they all have problems but I've experienced a lot of problems - usually electrical and I've read about quite a few engine problems.

HP / liter is not an important performance achievement... the size / weight of the engine, the power it makes and fuel economy are all more important. I don't know if the S62 is larger or smaller than the previous gen M3s 6 cylinder, but I do know that the LSx engines are smaller than the previous M3 engine.

As for which offers a nicer track experience; I haven't driven a TC or SC engine that is as predictable as a NA engine. I'd much rather have a high reving, responsive, and linear NA engine than a FI car on the track - driving on the street, I want the torque.

Fubar75207
03-25-09, 11:17 AM
They are both great cars. I prefer the V as a daily driver but the M is no slouch in that department. There is also a patriotic benefit of buying domestic during these times.

Heavychevy1
03-25-09, 12:27 PM
I'm sure they will have a video on their website:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/video/roadtests.shtml

The 09 V beats the M5 review after review. This time three tenths and 2 MPH in the quarter mile and half a second per lap...this is getting old for the wiener schnitzel boys! Nothing but accolades for the V aside from brakes. They said the M5 lack the umpf out of the corners and it's what we've known all along that torque rules. The V was an automatic and the M5 was a "proper transmission" 6-speed. :)

Norm

Almost 200 lb-ft and a .5 better weight to power ratio nets .2 and 2 mph in the quarter mile and .5 on the road course. Now imagine 180 more hp and tell me which is better, hp or torque??? Lots of extra torque = little gains. Give the M5 just a .5 advantage in weight to power ratio (560-571 hp) and we all know what would happen depsite the lack of torque. HP is the ruling factor.

BTW did you notice the Acura's on pole at the ALMS race, now in the same class with the Peugeots and Audis. That's with less than half the amount of torque, less displacement (4 liter vs 5.5 liter), and no turbos. When the ACO loses their turbo diesel fetish, it's going to be curtains.

HP and revs FTW.

NormV
03-25-09, 02:41 PM
I'm not driving a manufacturer race car any time soon, are you?

You can twist numbers any way you please but the end of the day, same day and cold not torque friendly slippery surface, M5 looses AGAIN! Obviously your theories will never be applied by BMW. Ever wonder why?


Norm


Almost 200 lb-ft and a .5 better weight to power ratio nets .2 and 2 mph in the quarter mile and .5 on the road course. Now imagine 180 more hp and tell me which is better, hp or torque??? Lots of extra torque = little gains. Give the M5 just a .5 advantage in weight to power ratio (560-571 hp) and we all know what would happen depsite the lack of torque. HP is the ruling factor.

BTW did you notice the Acura's on pole at the ALMS race, now in the same class with the Peugeots and Audis. That's with less than half the amount of torque, less displacement (4 liter vs 5.5 liter), and no turbos. When the ACO loses their turbo diesel fetish, it's going to be curtains.

HP and revs FTW.

Vlakaz
03-25-09, 11:51 PM
Have you driven both? I've always said that I love my LS6. But what it doesn't have is the absolute willingness to rev to redline like my old V6 SHO powerplant did. One thing I miss, even with all that extra power, is the way that car revved. Everytime you got in the SHO, you wanted to redline it. I miss that...

Well said.. I have a 91 SHO and will probably keep it as a winter car after I get the V in 2 weeks. The 5 speed manual SHO is definantly a car that enjoys being run up to the redline. I don't want to miss that feeling, so I'll try to keep both Cars :)

thebigjimsho
03-26-09, 07:12 AM
Well said.. I have a 91 SHO and will probably keep it as a winter car after I get the V in 2 weeks. The 5 speed manual SHO is definantly a car that enjoys being run up to the redline. I don't want to miss that feeling, so I'll try to keep both Cars :)
I wish I could've kept mine, but I had done so many mods, needed so many more and the body still needed a lot of work since it was my daily driver for 8 years and still was regularly driven after that...

SRT8/BMW
03-26-09, 10:08 AM
I wish I could've kept mine, but I had done so many mods, needed so many more and the body still needed a lot of work since it was my daily driver for 8 years and still was regularly driven after that...


just curious big jim..since you seem to keep up with the market--have you checked into the new 2010 Sho? If so--what do you think, looks like an interesting car to say the least, being AWD.

CIWS
03-26-09, 10:13 AM
have you checked into the new 2010 Sho? If so--what do you think, looks like an interesting car to say the least, being AWD.

Do you think they will out tune /perform the 335i for slightly less cash ?

Florian
03-26-09, 10:16 AM
just curious big jim..since you seem to keep up with the market--have you checked into the new 2010 Sho? If so--what do you think, looks like an interesting car to say the least, being AWD.

f-u-g-l-y.....right up Jimbos alley


F

SRT8/BMW
03-26-09, 10:28 AM
Do you think they will out tune /perform the 335i for slightly less cash ?


thats kind of why I asked....if they come 355 awhp (if i remember right) and turbo'd..then it won't take much in the way of a tune to get them over 400 awhp. It is such a riot to have a fast awd drive car that can be driven year round and can launch in the rain, when you live in a climate like Michigan for example.

jasaero
03-26-09, 06:00 PM
thats kind of why I asked....if they come 355 awhp (if i remember right) and turbo'd..then it won't take much in the way of a tune to get them over 400 awhp. It is such a riot to have a fast awd drive car that can be driven year round and can launch in the rain, when you live in a climate like Michigan for example.

I think it has 365hp at the crank rather than wheels. None the less I think 400awhp is probably doable. Think it will take a good bit beyond what you are getting 335xi though for this to catch your car. It will probably be in CTS-V weight range with it's size and AWD. Maybe even more than the V. The 335 isn't a feather weight these days, but is a lot smaller car than this.

Vlakaz
03-26-09, 09:52 PM
I wish I could've kept mine, but I had done so many mods, needed so many more and the body still needed a lot of work since it was my daily driver for 8 years and still was regularly driven after that...

I hear you. The body on my 91 needs alot of work. I just need to find a body shop up here that can do the impossible, which is a good inexpensive job. Steering wheel leather is worn out and the driver seat has seen better days, but other then that it still runs with the best of them. It is my daily driver, but the new V coming in a week or so will be my daily driver for 8 or 9months of the year, and the SHO will be the winter car. I just hope the SHO can last one or two winters without too many expenses.

I look forward to the 09V. I think what alot of M owners fail to really take into consideration is that at 40K or so (CDN dollars) more expensive, the M5 is supposed to be quicker (which it's not), much better quality (which is arguable), have better brakes, better handeling, better resale value, etc etc...

Its great that M owners take so much pride in their cars, (as do V owners)but give me the V and let me use the $$$ savings to pay my gas, insurance, vacations, etc for the next 10 years.

Yes in the next year or two the new M5's or E63AMGs will be quicker then the V (and still alot more expensive), so at the end of the day it really doesn't matter who is a tenth of a second quicker hear and there. Pick a car you can afford, like the look and feel of and call it a day.

The reality for me, and I bet alot of people on this forum, is, that even if the M3, C63, E63 or M5 were identical in cost to the V, I and they would still take the V. I personally prefer the exterior and interior look of the V.

neuronbob
03-27-09, 12:59 PM
Yes in the next year or two the new M5's or E63AMGs will be quicker then the V (and still alot more expensive), so at the end of the day it really doesn't matter who is a tenth of a second quicker hear and there. Pick a car you can afford, like the look and feel of and call it a day.

The reality for me, and I bet alot of people on this forum, is, that even if the M3, C63, E63 or M5 were identical in cost to the V, I and they would still take the V. I personally prefer the exterior and interior look of the V.

Well stated, and particularly the part I bolded.

trukk
03-27-09, 01:52 PM
Well stated, and particularly the part I bolded.

Ya but then what would we have to complain about on teh internetz? :D

-Chris

bpitas
03-27-09, 03:46 PM
I guess the M was a manual trans.. was the CTS an auto?

Looked like the second run was much closer.
I imagine the start is critical when your talking these speeds and especially the torque advantage of the LSA.

Did anyone else notice that it seemed like the M5 driver was short-shifting it? I know my LS6 likes to be brought up to red-line when racing, and I would assume the M5 wouldn't have an 8500rpm redline if it didn't make more power up top too, but it sounded to me like the M5 was being shifted way before 8500rpm. I'm no expert on the sound a V10 would make at 8500rpm of course - the only thing I have that revs that high is my V-twin sport bike which STARTS making power at 8500rpm, but it still sounded short-shifted to me...

trukk
03-27-09, 04:09 PM
Did anyone else notice that it seemed like the M5 driver was short-shifting it? I know my LS6 likes to be brought up to red-line when racing, and I would assume the M5 wouldn't have an 8500rpm redline if it didn't make more power up top too, but it sounded to me like the M5 was being shifted way before 8500rpm. I'm no expert on the sound a V10 would make at 8500rpm of course - the only thing I have that revs that high is my V-twin sport bike which STARTS making power at 8500rpm, but it still sounded short-shifted to me...


I saw the comments on youtube talking about that as well. It begs the question, WTF would you short shift in a race? Unless the guy is setting up for a money race later. Doesn't makes sense to me. I smell sour grapes.

-Chris

Vlakaz
03-27-09, 05:04 PM
Ya but then what would we have to complain about on teh internetz? :D

-Chris

We can always complain about gas prices.

There should be a switch on the dash to turn the supercharger off to save gas when not needed... and ngage it when its time to get up to speed very quickly... just like the movie Mad Max. ;)

ericpd
03-27-09, 08:37 PM
We can always complain about gas prices.

There should be a switch on the dash to turn the supercharger off to save gas when not needed... and ngage it when its time to get up to speed very quickly... just like the movie Mad Max. ;)

Uhmm,... sorry, but turning off the SC would make the mpg numbers drop like a rock. Sounds good, but it just doesn't work that way,... well except in the movies.

ericpd
03-27-09, 09:07 PM
Well I finally saw the Motorweek episode pitting the 09 CTS-V against the 09 M5. Guess what guys,... I want them both! Maybe I can find someone who'll trade my 2003 C32 for their 2009 M5,... even Steven no less! Then I'd have both. Anyway,... the outcome was predictable and no surprise to me. The 09 V beats the M5 in every category save brakes and preceived refinement. Now I've never been behind the wheel of an M5, but I have in the shot gun seat while the driver was trying to impress me. I must admit,... I was impressed. Truly impressed. All the way up to the point where I reached the 500 mile mark on my Odometer.

Did you take notice of the head-on shot of the V. Was that a monster stance or what?

Stingray23
03-28-09, 01:12 AM
am I the only one that does not see the video?

ericpd
03-28-09, 01:16 PM
I saw the comments on youtube talking about that as well. It begs the question, WTF would you short shift in a race? Unless the guy is setting up for a money race later. Doesn't makes sense to me. I smell sour grapes.

-Chris

I don't think the audio was an exact match for the video,... it sounded to me like the audio was pasted in. You know,... like the moaning and groaning in foreign porn films. LOL! I'm sure he made his shifts on time,... had he not, I doubt the M5 wouldn't have been as close as it was. I'm telling you, the M5 is no match for the V when it comes to low end grunt work. However, the V is a match for the M5 when it comes to the twisties,... even with the superior brakes of the M5 allowing the driver to go deeper into the curves. But then again,... the V can grunt its way out of the curves much better.

bpitas
03-30-09, 03:27 PM
I saw the comments on youtube talking about that as well. It begs the question, WTF would you short shift in a race? Unless the guy is setting up for a money race later. Doesn't makes sense to me. I smell sour grapes.

-Chris

I wasn't implying malice - usually it's just that guys don't know where to shift. :hmm:

I remember when I got my C5 everyone at the strip was trying to tell me that you had to short shift it because "american cars make torque, not horsepower" or whatever, but I spent a lot of nights at the strip trying different shift points in different gears, and it was definitely fastest shifting at redline. It might have been that the intake tract on that car was a bottleneck and my cold air box opened it up, but my dyno plot was just levelling off 500rpm or so before redline.

I haven't been to the track with the V nearly enough to experiment the same way I did with the C5, nor have I dyno'd it, but it seems to me that for whatever reason the V doesn't like 3rd gear and does better at highway speeds if you shift into 4th a little bit lower than redline. I've seen the RPM vs HP vs gearing graphs too, and it doesn't make any sense, but in side by side pulls on the highway, 4th gear just seems faster for some reason...

So maybe the M5 guy was just shifting it wrong because he thought it was faster if you didn't go to redline or something...

-B

trukk
03-30-09, 04:59 PM
I've seen a few postes reagding the V's brakes in respect to the M5. I had always heard that the M5's brakes tended to fade fairly quickly at the track (this may or may not be the case). I'm surprised to here people sayting that they are better than the V's.

I have a V1, wiht the OEM 14" 4 pot Brembos, and behind the LS6, they are the best damned thing about the car. Are there issues with the 6 pot 15"-ers on the V2? My gut would tell me even with a couple hundred pounds more weight, they should still be pretty bad-assed.

Is M5 vs. V2 brakes an actual issue, or more German bias?

Edjukate me V2 guys.

-Chris

endo
03-30-09, 05:47 PM
Here is the video of Motorweek
YouTube - MotorWeek Road Test: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V vs. 2009 BMW M5

Vlakaz
03-30-09, 05:58 PM
Uhmm,... sorry, but turning off the SC would make the mpg numbers drop like a rock. Sounds good, but it just doesn't work that way,... well except in the movies.

I'm no mechanic, but it seems as if gas milage increases dramatically in our STSv when you are not in "boost" all the time. Thus I would assume that if you could turn the SC off that you would not create as much HP and therefore use less fuel?

I Could be wrong. :)


Although not supercharged, you can dial down the M5 to 400Hp, I assume that uses less fuel then when its pushing its full 507. :)

bpitas
03-30-09, 06:04 PM
Listening to the M5 in the Motorweek piece and then watching the earlier Dallas car club video again, the Dallas M5 was *definitely* short shifting. Wouldn't necessarily make a big difference, but still....

Vlakaz
03-30-09, 06:46 PM
Thanks for the vid post Endo. I actually hadn't seen that one yet.

The M5 is a great car, but I'm not a fan of BMW in general.. glad I went with the V :D I don't mind driving a brawler vs a boxer ;)
I just hope the CTSv doesn't bite my ear off!

atdeneve
03-31-09, 02:16 PM
I've seen a few postes reagding the V's brakes in respect to the M5. I had always heard that the M5's brakes tended to fade fairly quickly at the track (this may or may not be the case). I'm surprised to here people sayting that they are better than the V's.

I have a V1, wiht the OEM 14" 4 pot Brembos, and behind the LS6, they are the best damned thing about the car. Are there issues with the 6 pot 15"-ers on the V2? My gut would tell me even with a couple hundred pounds more weight, they should still be pretty bad-assed.

Is M5 vs. V2 brakes an actual issue, or more German bias?

Edjukate me V2 guys.

-Chris

I wouldn't put too much weight on what Motorweek has had to say about these two vehicles.

The M5 has been nearing four to five years that it has been out and I think it's generally accepted to be rather tail happy in it's character. Even Bill Auberlen expresses this notion in the Road Track comparison with him and Heinricy, indicating that it is so easily tempting to drift. Of course, Motorweek seems to indicate the exact opposite. Hmmm...

Similar to your current understanding, most of of the impressions on the M5's brakes during track duty is that it does tend to fade over repeated hard laps. Most of the impressions on the V1s brakes, nevermind the V2s upgraded brakes, are that they are virtually fade free on the track (if not, totally fade free). The V2s brakes have been nothing but lauded in every other review. Incidentally - or not so incidentally - similar to the V1's brakes, they have been noted to display repeated impeccable stopping power on the track. Of course, Motorweek seems to feel different.

Due to their discrepancies with other established publications (as well as, the general public consensus), I would tend to think they're full of ish...

Nevermind the fact that the host's voice and tonal inflections are so unbelievably bland, fake, and coma inducing that that alone would warrant grounds for them to pack it up and shove it. Ehh.

The M5 is still awesome, though.

NormV
03-31-09, 02:25 PM
You didn,t notice his new jacket?! :)

Think of it as a real world testing. Remember this is public TV!

Norm


...
Nevermind the fact that the host's voice and tonal inflections are so unbelievably bland, fake, and coma inducing that that alone would warrant grounds for them to pack it up and shove it. Ehh.

The M5 is still awesome, though.

thebigjimsho
03-31-09, 08:09 PM
The V1's brakes never fade.

Richie18
03-31-09, 08:35 PM
I'm no mechanic, but it seems as if gas milage increases dramatically in our STSv when you are not in "boost" all the time. Thus I would assume that if you could turn the SC off that you would not create as much HP and therefore use less fuel?

I Could be wrong. :)


Although not supercharged, you can dial down the M5 to 400Hp, I assume that uses less fuel then when its pushing its full 507. :)

Yes this is correct, of course you're not using as much gas when the supercharger isn't in the boost range, your not pushing as much air into the engine, less air in the cylinder, means less fuel which means less horsepower.

You'll notice that the supercharger will only go in the boost range when the engine is loaded (accelerating briskly or going up a hill). You will notice that if you rev the engine while in Neutral you will make no boost. You can avoid making boost by leaving the car in a lower gear as the engine won't be loaded. This isn't to say though that dropping down to a lower gear will automatically net you better MPG just cause your not making boost.

MPGs dropping like a rock because the supercharger isn't making boost is terribly inaccurate.

Connectcut CTS-V
03-31-09, 09:42 PM
I traded an M6 for the CTS-V and I can tell you truthfully that the brakes on the M6 felt superior. The M6 felt like it was much quicker to respond to peddle modulation. I don't think brake fade is the issue. I think the Vs just lack the initial bite that you get with an M class car. I have looked for ways to improve the Vs current setup and all I can come up with is sticker pads.





Will do. :thumbsup:

Fubar, I am very interested to hear your opinion of the M6 vs. the CTS-V. I have a frend who just purchased a M6, and I just purchased a CTS-V. Should I be bold enough to run him for pink slips?

thebigjimsho
03-31-09, 10:43 PM
Fubar, I am very interested to hear your opinion of the M6 vs. the CTS-V. I have a frend who just purchased a M6, and I just purchased a CTS-V. Should I be bold enough to run him for pink slips?
you forgot the i

Fubar75207
04-01-09, 07:20 PM
I've read that the best and most direct way to bring the brakes up to snuff is to gut out all the rubber hoses in the system and replace with stainless steel. Balooning is the biggest reason for the V's brakes not performing up to their name sake.


I thought I would try that approach as well but when I spoke to Jessie (waitforme) he said that the '09 Vs are actually SS Braided lines with rubber over them... so changing the lines would accomplish nothing. The only thing left to do is look for a sticker brake pad... that also means more dust.

As an update, I double checked the lines today and sure-enough they are standard rubber brakes lines. I will start to work on SS braided lines again, unless waitforme wants to take this project on. I would much rather just buy a product that he has researched and manufactured :thumbsup:

jvp
04-02-09, 11:40 AM
As an update, I double checked the lines today and sure-enough they are standard rubber brakes lines. I will start to work on SS braided lines again, unless waitforme wants to take this project on. I would much rather just buy a product that he has researched and manufactured

For what it's worth, you may want to check with the great folks at StopTech (the guys that did the brakes on my Z06). They have SS lines with clear flexible plastic sheaths over them, so as to be DOT compliant. The concern there is if you're in a state that does regular "safety" (haha) inspections. Most states that perform these inspections aren't keen on non-DOT SS lines.

I don't know if StopTech has a set of lines that'll fit the new V. But, I'll bet they do.

jas

ericpd
04-02-09, 04:04 PM
Yes this is correct, of course you're not using as much gas when the supercharger isn't in the boost range, your not pushing as much air into the engine, less air in the cylinder, means less fuel which means less horsepower.

You'll notice that the supercharger will only go in the boost range when the engine is loaded (accelerating briskly or going up a hill). You will notice that if you rev the engine while in Neutral you will make no boost. You can avoid making boost by leaving the car in a lower gear as the engine won't be loaded. This isn't to say though that dropping down to a lower gear will automatically net you better MPG just cause your not making boost.

MPGs dropping like a rock because the supercharger isn't making boost is terribly inaccurate.

I didn't say the MPG would dropping like a rock if the SC wasn't making boost. I said that the MPG would drop like a rock if he flipped a magic switch totally physically isolating and/or electronically disconnecting the SC from the system. Performance would also drop like a rock. I've been through this with my C32 AMG three times, and understand why now,... at first I didn't, now I do. The problem is specific to the roots style SC and where it's seated,... in the valley, Ho Ho Ho! Even when it's not providing boost, it's still an integral part of the intake system,... unlike other SC schemes and types. When the roots SC positioned where it is on our cars goes AWOL, it turns into a big expensive choke and actually restrict air to the point where the computer is no longer able to compensate. Picture a dirty air filter on steroids. I say steroids because the computer can compensate and adjust fuel for a reasonably dirty filter. All the gates shut down too if that switch is flipped.

I experienced this three time with my C32 AMG. Twice when the inter-cooler pump failed and once as a result of a pulley clutch failure. When the pump fails,... the computer has in its back pocket a switch like the one the poster was talking about, and literally flips that switch to save the power plant. When the clutch fails, it similarly kills the system and flips that switch by freezing the clutch open and shutting down all the electronics (gates locked). In all three cases, I sucked nearly a half tank of gas just getting to the dealership (a 20-25 minute drive), and could barely get over 40 mph. Yeah, it's easy to intuitively think that flipping such a switch would be a good thing,... forcing the engine to naturally aspirate. But I learned from my experiences and a lot of words from the MB techs explaining things to me that it just don't happen like that with a roots SC sittin' in the middle.

Now I'm sure there's a way to fab a system where alternate intake routes jump in when you flip this magic switch, but I doubt our V's are designed that way. At least AMG's aren't!

Sorry for the long post.

ericpd
04-02-09, 04:09 PM
As an update, I double checked the lines today and sure-enough they are standard rubber brakes lines. I will start to work on SS braided lines again, unless waitforme wants to take this project on. I would much rather just buy a product that he has researched and manufactured :thumbsup:

That's kinda good news there Fubar,... nice to know there's plenty of room for improving things!

JFJr
04-02-09, 05:26 PM
Now I'm sure there's a way to fab a system where alternate intake routes jump in when you flip this magic switch, but I doubt our V's are designed that way.
But if the LSA were normally aspirated, or defaulted to that state, wouldn't we want a higher compression ratio for better efficiency?

You really had to endure a lot with your AMG. I hope that the supercharger belt and other components related to the LSA supercharger/intercooler are more durable.

Richie18
04-02-09, 06:25 PM
I didn't say the MPG would dropping like a rock if the SC wasn't making boost. I said that the MPG would drop like a rock if he flipped a magic switch totally physically isolating and/or electronically disconnecting the SC from the system. Performance would also drop like a rock. I've been through this with my C32 AMG three times, and understand why now,... at first I didn't, now I do. The problem is specific to the roots style SC and where it's seated,... in the valley, Ho Ho Ho! Even when it's not providing boost, it's still an integral part of the intake system,... unlike other SC schemes and types. When the roots SC positioned where it is on our cars goes AWOL, it turns into a big expensive choke and actually restrict air to the point where the computer is no longer able to compensate. Picture a dirty air filter on steroids. I say steroids because the computer can compensate and adjust fuel for a reasonably dirty filter. All the gates shut down too if that switch is flipped.

I experienced this three time with my C32 AMG. Twice when the inter-cooler pump failed and once as a result of a pulley clutch failure. When the pump fails,... the computer has in its back pocket a switch like the one the poster was talking about, and literally flips that switch to save the power plant. When the clutch fails, it similarly kills the system and flips that switch by freezing the clutch open and shutting down all the electronics (gates locked). In all three cases, I sucked nearly a half tank of gas just getting to the dealership (a 20-25 minute drive), and could barely get over 40 mph. Yeah, it's easy to intuitively think that flipping such a switch would be a good thing,... forcing the engine to naturally aspirate. But I learned from my experiences and a lot of words from the MB techs explaining things to me that it just don't happen like that with a roots SC sittin' in the middle.

Now I'm sure there's a way to fab a system where alternate intake routes jump in when you flip this magic switch, but I doubt our V's are designed that way. At least AMG's aren't!

Sorry for the long post.


I believe your are over complicating the eaton roots type blower and understanding when it makes boost. When you decide you want to go fast, enough air is sucked into the engine that a vacuum actuated relief valve is closed, it is at that point that you are making boost. This is what allows the eaton roots blower to make 0 boost or instant boost depending on how you are accelerating.This is much different than a centrifugal supercharger or turbocharger which makes an increasing of amount of boost with an increase in engine speed. When the engine isn't asking for any extra air the valve is just open and no boost is being made.

The switch that was theoretically being talked about would just force this valve to be open all the time, regardless of engine load. Air would still flow through the rotors normally. This is what happens any time you see that boost needle on the left side of 0.

It sounds as if the issues you were having with your C32 were related to other problems with the engine going into some type of limp mode.

Hawkeye2
04-02-09, 06:54 PM
Great posts, I'm getting educated!

Fubar75207
04-02-09, 09:11 PM
Yes but a turbo does not make boost based on engine RPM. It makes boost based on engine load and it does it MUCH more efficiently than a supercharger. Unfortunately, turbos still have significant lag (despite what manufacturers of turbo cars say) and then the power comes on so violently that I do not care for them. SC on the other hand make boost based on engine RPM. According to Richie (and I do not doubt a word he has said) our engines employ some sort of vacuum controlled relief value that allows the boost to be fully realized, only when needed. I think I would rather have my boost all the time. I like the linear power of the SC.

Very interesting.

Richie18
04-02-09, 09:54 PM
Yes but a turbo does not make boost based on engine RPM. It makes boost based on engine load and it does it MUCH more efficiently than a supercharger. Unfortunately, turbos still have significant lag (despite what manufacturers of turbo cars say) and then the power comes on so violently that I do not care for them. SC on the other hand make boost based on engine RPM. According to Richie (and I do not doubt a word he has said) our engines employ some sort of vacuum controlled relief value that allows the boost to be fully realized, only when needed. I think I would rather have my boost all the time. I like the linear power of the SC.

Very interesting.

Turbo's and centrifugal superchargers make a much more linear torque curve. (Of course the turbo must be implemented correctly). Torque curves for eaton roots type blowers are typically much more drastic.

When you floor it on a roots type, you get almost full boost instantly, when you floor it for a centrifugal supercharger you only get the boost available at that engine speed.

Fubar75207
04-02-09, 10:01 PM
Turbo's and centrifugal superchargers make a much more linear torque curve. (Of course the turbo must be implemented correctly). Torque curves for eaton roots type blowers are typically much more drastic.

When you floor it on a roots type, you get almost full boost instantly, when you floor it for a centrifugal supercharger you only get the boost available at that engine speed.

My personal experience contradicts what you are saying but I am not an expert... just a car enthusiast.

BlackLight
04-02-09, 10:55 PM
Im not an expert either, but I do know a little.
I have owned a few turbo and S/C vehicles, and messed with them all, to a greater and lesser extent.

Think of it this way:
The turbo or SC'er is a pump in the airstream into the engine.
When there is an abundance of air (Wide Open Throttle), the pump will compress it and give you positive pressure (boost) in the intake plenum.

Now the reason a turbo does not give you much at low engine speed, is that it's not a positive displacement device, in most applications, it needs a lot of exhaust gas flow (rpm) to get the turbine to turn the impeller fast enough to make positive pressure in the plenum.

A supercharger is direct (belt) driven, so it needs no "spool time" to make boost. As soon as there is air to compress, it will do so, according to the ratio determined by the designer. The variance is not the device speed, but the load in the belt, aka the amount of power required to keep it turning at the 1:3 (or something) ratio.

Both devices are a slight blockage in the intake path during light load, but they are turning and compressing the partial vacuum to a slightly less partial vacuum. :alchi:

thebigjimsho
04-03-09, 12:26 AM
f-u-g-l-y.....right up Jimbos alley


F
At least I didn't drop the CTS-V for an STS-V, Chuckles...

thebigjimsho
04-03-09, 12:37 AM
just curious big jim..since you seem to keep up with the market--have you checked into the new 2010 Sho? If so--what do you think, looks like an interesting car to say the least, being AWD.
Nice power and a nice drivetrain in a nice car. But the SHO is just a name now. If there isn't a Yamaha motor, I wish they'd at least stick the EcoBoost in a Fusion instead...

Richie18
04-03-09, 01:06 AM
My personal experience contradicts what you are saying but I am not an expert... just a car enthusiast.

I'll just reiterate that i was talking about centrifugal superchargers, which are basically belt driven turbochargers. This type of supercharger typically follows the original torque curve of the engine, while a eaton roots type blower creates a much more drastic torque curve.

A turbocharger follows the same influence as a centrifugal supercharger, they both build boost and continuing doing so till the red line. This is not the case for eaton roots type blowers which make near maximum boost at almost any rpm. (>2000rpm typically).

Turbochargers can give you a seat of the pants feeling that contradicts this, because of lag, among other things, but torque curves show they typically influence engines they way i mentioned above.

NormV
04-03-09, 08:54 AM
http://freep.com/article/20090403/BUSINESS01/904030309/1014/Ford+to+put+Ecoboost+to+wide+use


Ecoboost for everything! It's has satisfied the Australian market for some time vs the V8 in the Holden/Commodore line up.



Nice power and a nice drivetrain in a nice car. But the SHO is just a name now. If there isn't a Yamaha motor, I wish they'd at least stick the EcoBoost in a Fusion instead...

ericpd
04-03-09, 12:18 PM
I believe your are over complicating the eaton roots type blower and understanding when it makes boost. When you decide you want to go fast, enough air is sucked into the engine that a vacuum actuated relief valve is closed, it is at that point that you are making boost. This is what allows the eaton roots blower to make 0 boost or instant boost depending on how you are accelerating.This is much different than a centrifugal supercharger or turbocharger which makes an increasing of amount of boost with an increase in engine speed. When the engine isn't asking for any extra air the valve is just open and no boost is being made.

Over complicating it? Yeah,... you're prolly right. I'm just regurgitating how it was explained to me by the MB techs. Bottom line is, these roots SC's are a combination of electronics (triggers for the gates and such) and mechanics (pullies, clutches and belts). When the system is killed, either by a central switch you flip or by the computer flipping it's switch because it senses a failure in one or more components, the MPG tanks and the car feels like it's powered by an old Harley Davidson V-Twin Knucklehead. Period.


The switch that was theoretically being talked about would just force this valve to be open all the time, regardless of engine load. Air would still flow through the rotors normally. This is what happens any time you see that boost needle on the left side of 0.

Ah,... I think this is where we're missing each other. According to the guys with the three pointed star on their gray overalls, air doesn't floooow through a roots SC unit like it does through a carburetor mounted on a normal intake manifold,... especially when it ain't spinning. If it did,... there wouldn't be any reciprocal charge when it is spinning. That's what the gates are for,... to expel excess charge and allow uncharged air flow. These gates aren't purely and totally vacuum triggered. Fact is, the waste gate is the only one that even takes the time to read actual barometric pressure. The bulk of the instruction set for these gates is electronic based, receiving ques from various sensors. In the old sans-computer controlled days, barometric pressure orchestrated things alone. But you're right,... a system could be fabed to do this mechanically, and do it well I guess! But why, the computer already turns on and turns off the SC quite nicely.


It sounds as if the issues you were having with your C32 were related to other problems with the engine going into some type of limp mode.

Actually, the problems were pretty standard for the C32 AMG. As with most forced air systems, heat soak is an important issue, and the C32 had problems with their intercooler pumps. When it stopped pumping coolant through the inter-cooler, the system would kill itself. The clutch failure was also fairly common,... when it failed, it failed open, completely dis-engaging the rotors no matter what data the various sensors where telling it. Pretty much a designed feature lowering the risk of further engine damage. Initially I thought what you're thinking. That if the system locked-down (flipped the switch) as a result of a component failure, my car would perform as a normal and regular Mercedes Benz C-Class C320. Not! In my case, as soon as the inter-cooler pump was replaced, the system no longer sensed a component failure and flipped the switch un-killing the SC. No more limp mode. Bottom line, if the SC is turned off (for what ever reason) and the gates aren't operating, you have limp mode. Air doesn't flow nicely through the SC unit as you might suspect, especially if it's sitting in the valley where it's relationship to the heads' intake ports are pretty much direct (less throttling schemes, air to liquid cooling, and stuff like that). Centrifugical units that force air into an existing NA intake system are a lot less forgiving.

I'm not an expert on SC'ers,... just repeating how it was explained to me by MB. And oh yeah,... there's not a lot of difference between the SC's we have on our CTS-V's and the SC's AMG uses.

Fubar75207
04-03-09, 12:50 PM
I'll just reiterate that i was talking about centrifugal superchargers, which are basically belt driven turbochargers. This type of supercharger typically follows the original torque curve of the engine, while a eaton roots type blower creates a much more drastic torque curve.

A turbocharger follows the same influence as a centrifugal supercharger, they both build boost and continuing doing so till the red line. This is not the case for eaton roots type blowers which make near maximum boost at almost any rpm. (>2000rpm typically).

Turbochargers can give you a seat of the pants feeling that contradicts this, because of lag, among other things, but torque curves show they typically influence engines they way i mentioned above.

I agree that SC make torque more abundantly but turbo's make HP much earlier and then spin the engine up much faster. That is the characteristic that I refereed to as "violent." I think it was discussed earlier in this thread that torque makes for a fun dailer driver and HP makes for a fun track car (although you can use either for both). Once you understand how torque is used it is easy to control... hp is a little unweilding to me.

*my two cents*

Richie18
04-03-09, 12:55 PM
Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm, so if a car is making more horsepower earlier (assuming earlier in the rpm band) then it is making more torque earlier too.

NormV
04-03-09, 01:33 PM
It's actually the DME(PCM) that will detect intake temperatures and reduce power as a result of your failed IC pump on AMGs. I think all AMG and the C-class Kompressor used a electronically controlled magnetic clutch, like the AC system uses, remember too that AMG uses superior twin screw/lyschom siprecharger that compresses air in the sc not the intake like root style Eatons, even the newer Gen 6. The root system are less efficient as with each lobe compressing air into the intake the back side of the lobe lowers pressure causing air to go back and forth one or more times before hits the intercooler. Each time is compressed it,a temperature increases. Your C32 AMG probably cruised at 5-10F over ambient where Magnacharged 04-07 V1 cruise at 40-60F over ambient. Then there is boost stacking in which the lobes will compress the same molecules over and over negateing the extra hp from extra boost. The V2 is far superior to the Gen 4 Eaton but I have not seen any data on how it compares to lyschom style. Eaton is not the best blower on the market but is probably the most durable when it comes to factoring warranty costs.

Have you seen the 510 hp. Jaguar XFR? 12.7 @ 115 mph! And that is just out of a 5.0l 32 valves with the V2 style blower on it. Who says there is no replacement for displacement? Must be variable valve timing!


Norm

Fubar75207
04-03-09, 01:47 PM
Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm, so if a car is making more horsepower earlier (assuming earlier in the rpm band) then it is making more torque earlier too.

That's a silly argument... yes HP is a function of torque and torque is a function of HP. That does not mean if one jump up the other must do the same. You must also consider weight and rotation speed. All of these factors must be taken into consideration.

You can make 1500ft/lbs of torque and be at 125HP.

jvp
04-03-09, 03:04 PM
That does not mean if one jump up the other must do the same. You must also consider weight and rotation speed. All of these factors must be taken into consideration.

You can make 1500ft/lbs of torque and be at 125HP.

Weight does not play a role at all in the HP/Tq formula. It is:

HP = (Tq * RPM)/5252

That's it. The only way HP can go up without Tq also going up is if the RPMs are climbing faster than the Tq is dropping. And you'll be very hard pressed to find an engine that has a "sudden" HP spike just because RPMs are going up. HP spikes almost always happen with Tq spikes.

It's all math. Math isn't hard. :-)

jas

Richie18
04-03-09, 03:15 PM
That's a silly argument... yes HP is a function of torque and torque is a function of HP. That does not mean if one jump up the other must do the same. You must also consider weight and rotation speed. All of these factors must be taken into consideration.

You can make 1500ft/lbs of torque and be at 125HP.


Weight does not play a role at all in the HP/Tq formula. It is:

HP = (Tq * RPM)/5252

That's it. The only way HP can go up without Tq also going up is if the RPMs are climbing faster than the Tq is dropping. And you'll be very hard pressed to find an engine that has a "sudden" HP spike just because RPMs are going up. HP spikes almost always happen with Tq spikes.

It's all math. Math isn't hard. :-)

jas

What he said.

Fubar75207
04-03-09, 05:26 PM
Weight does not play a role at all in the HP/Tq formula. It is:

HP = (Tq * RPM)/5252

That's it. The only way HP can go up without Tq also going up is if the RPMs are climbing faster than the Tq is dropping. And you'll be very hard pressed to find an engine that has a "sudden" HP spike just because RPMs are going up. HP spikes almost always happen with Tq spikes.

It's all math. Math isn't hard. :-)

jas


I didn't realize you used the formula that often. I have never personally calculated my own HP (which I hope explains my foolishness with regard to the actual formula) but now I can... thank you. However, you have made my point very well. As you said "HP can go up without Tq going up if the RPMs are climbing faster than the Tq is dropping."

I am very sorry I tried to correct anyone on the Internet. Everyone seems to know it all already. :hide:

Regards,
Fubar

jvp
04-03-09, 05:46 PM
However, you have made my point very well. As you said "HP can go up without Tq going up if the RPMs are climbing faster than the Tq is dropping."

Actually, I didn't. Your original line was this:


That does not mean if one jump up the other must do the same.

A "jump" in either HP or torque WILL be accompanied by a jump in the other. There's just no way around it. They're mathematically linked by that formula.

The only time HP will go up even if torque is going down is, as I said, when torque is falling slower than the RPMs are climbing. The LSA is a good example of this. It makes its prodigious torque peak at 3800RPMs. From there, torque decreases. But, HP increases. The reason for that is the RPMs are climbing up constantly, while the torque is barely decreasing. The HP peak will happen when the torque decreases more than the RPMs increase (or at red line, whichever comes first).

But, through all of this, there are no sudden "jumps" in the graph. Just nice and smooth.

jas

Fubar75207
04-03-09, 06:02 PM
Ah, I see vernacular gets us again. Where you were speaking of actual spikes on a particular graph, I was referring to a general "jump" in torque verus another engine or engine type... very well. You have actually proven my point, you were just unclear as to what that point was.

It seems we tend to get stuck in these pointless debates from time to time. I would like to suggest that we move on. I suspect that everyone else is getting bored.

Regards,
FUBAR

ericpd
04-03-09, 08:47 PM
Ah, I see vernacular gets us again. Where you were speaking of actual spikes on a particular graph, I was referring to a general "jump" in torque verus another engine or engine type... very well. You have actually proven my point, you were just unclear as to what that point was.

It seems we tend to get stuck in these pointless debates from time to time. I would like to suggest that we move on. I suspect that everyone else is getting bored.

Regards,
FUBAR

OK,... why is my ultraview lid sticking in mid travel? Any ideas before I make my visit to the dealership? Is there some kind of 'reset' or 'sync' routine I should be doing? No mention in the owner's docs that I can find. If I keep banging on the button, it'll start-n-stop until it's either all the way open or all the closed, so there's no risk of getting caught in the rain or anything like that. But it is annoying!

verbs
04-04-09, 01:39 PM
So which closed course was this done on?

And how much were the drivers paid to do this? How many other driving gigs (like races, etc) have they done where they were paid? That is, of course, the definition of "professional".

Morons.

jas


:nono:

OK Grandpa.





On another note, both videos on the first page indicate that the M5s were sticks in both cases. The M5s with manuals are notably slower than the SMG M5s. I'd like to see a race of the SMG M5 vs. the CTS-V.

ericpd
04-04-09, 01:55 PM
:nono:

OK Grandpa.





On another note, both videos on the first page indicate that the M5s were sticks in both cases. The M5s with manuals are notably slower than the SMG M5s. I'd like to see a race of the SMG M5 vs. the CTS-V.

With the CTS-V being a Manual 6,... not an automatic. Yes,... BMW bring it's best and Caddy doing the same. I have heard that the M's SMG is faster than their manual, both with the M3 as well as the M5. I also think it is universally agreed that the manual TR6060 box makes for a faster V. I know my manual V seems quicker than the automatic V I first test drove. Somehow, I think little if anything would change.