: Motor Trend's m5 vs cts-v



jwa999
05-04-09, 12:51 PM
Yet an other comparison:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0907_bmw_m5_cadillac_ctsv_comparison/index.html

The other day I came up to a new m5 and played with him for a little bit on the tollroad here in north dallas. It was too busy for a full out run, but he was impressed, actually applauded me in the mirror.

Hans.

cmicasa
05-04-09, 01:16 PM
Yet an other comparison:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0907_bmw_m5_cadillac_ctsv_comparison/index.html

The other day I came up to a new m5 and played with him for a little bit on the tollroad here in north dallas. It was too busy for a full out run, but he was impressed, actually applauded me in the mirror.

Hans.

Applauded U???:hmm: He should have dropped his head in SHAME for having to spend $30K more just to get his ass beat.:cool2:

BMW will give the M5 a more powerful engine next year more than likely... (see X6m) but CAdillac, if the V continues, could easily bump the boost up on the LSA to achieve 575HP. Hell.. the 6.2L is so easy and inexpensive to modify half of U have already past 575HP without even spending over $1K.

I LOVE GM Engineering. The Germans and Japanese woke up the wrong "sleeping Giant.":duck:

NeedCTS-v
05-04-09, 01:21 PM
Thanks for posting.

I think that those are the best published times I've seen for the 6M (60 IN 4 flat, 12.3 @117).

Razorecko
05-04-09, 01:30 PM
I'll never hold a 'grudge' agains another enthusiast be he driving a mustang or if he's driving an m5. As long as theres a thumbs up or a wave its all good.

GMX322V S/C
05-04-09, 02:12 PM
Thanks for posting.

I think that those are the best published times I've seen for the 6M (60 IN 4 flat, 12.3 @117).No mention of "no-lift" either. If their policy is like C&D's, they may have left a tenth or two on the table.

Razorecko
05-04-09, 02:31 PM
That is a very low/weak time. I haven't seen a v trap less than 120.

neuronbob
05-04-09, 02:49 PM
Upon reading this again, I thought to myself something I don't usually.....thinking like a forum fanboi...

"CTS-V FTMFW!" :D

/childish fanboi statement

I am certainly enjoying tromping on the go-pedal on this car. It's as fun as my S2000, but in a totally different way. Happy to have both extremes of sports cars in my driveway.

verbs
05-04-09, 03:03 PM
That is a very low/weak time. I haven't seen a v trap less than 120.

#1, put the crack pipe down.



#2, as far as this review goes, the 6 speed manual on the M5 is KNOWN for being a good amount slower than the 7 speed SMG, so why they tested the 6 speed is beyond me. Had they tested the 7 speed SMG I bet the 1/4 mile times would have been almost identical.

darjae
05-04-09, 03:33 PM
...as far as this review goes, the 6 speed manual on the M5 is KNOWN for being a good amount slower than the 7 speed SMG, so why they tested the 6 speed is beyond me. Had they tested the 7 speed SMG I bet the 1/4 mile times would have been almost identical.

But, then, they'd have to get the V in auto as well, which would be faster in the 1/4 mile than the manual. The V would keep it's advantage.

digital1021
05-04-09, 03:49 PM
It's also the best published time, that I am aware of, for the M5 6M. Most have been 0-60MPH 4.7sec with a with one or two 4.5 sec. Most of the M5 SMG result are in the 4.5 to 4.3 sec range.

Razorecko
05-04-09, 03:58 PM
#1, put the crack pipe down.



#2, as far as this review goes, the 6 speed manual on the M5 is KNOWN for being a good amount slower than the 7 speed SMG, so why they tested the 6 speed is beyond me. Had they tested the 7 speed SMG I bet the 1/4 mile times would have been almost identical.

are you talking about the m5 or the V, as you can see in my quote i'm talking about the 6spd V

verbs
05-04-09, 04:31 PM
are you talking about the m5 or the V, as you can see in my quote i'm talking about the 6spd V

I'm talking about the V; most are trapping under 120mph contrary to what you said.

verbs
05-04-09, 04:35 PM
But, then, they'd have to get the V in auto as well, which would be faster in the 1/4 mile than the manual. The V would keep it's advantage.

The difference between the auto and manual V is much less than the difference between the SMG and manual M5.

The gap would be narrowed.

haterinc
05-04-09, 05:04 PM
who cares... for $30k less those hundredths of a second you're pointing out are negligible... i'd HOPE BMW could get more out of that v10 than a v8... too bad it didn't happen lol

NeedCTS-v
05-04-09, 05:10 PM
Regardless of the M5, it is the first time I've seen 6M numbers that were comarable to the auto in terms of time and trap speed.

Razorecko
05-04-09, 05:10 PM
Hey verbs why dont you gimme some of what you're smokin...so far REAL WORLD drivers have shown traps in the low 120's....the V is CAPABLE of 120 traps stock. Not what one or two mags have posted

NormV
05-04-09, 05:32 PM
Whew! It does weigh 4300 lbs. Can't see on my phone but it must have a heavy roof. The automatic must be pushing 4400.

So much for the manual M5 being hard to launch. Only a tenth off the V!


Norm

62Jeff
05-04-09, 11:26 PM
I do like my CTS-V, but it seems to me to be a stretch for them to say

"as a performance sedan, the CTS-V soundly spanks the M5"

The performance differences are minute, based on their own tests. The only significant difference appears to be in cost (BMW higher) and perceived build quality (BMW higher).

cmicasa
05-05-09, 12:23 AM
I do like my CTS-V, but it seems to me to be a stretch for them to say

"as a performance sedan, the CTS-V soundly spanks the M5"

The performance differences are minute, based on their own tests. The only significant difference appears to be in cost (BMW higher) and perceived build quality (BMW higher).


AND JUST LIKE THAT... U hit the nail on the head. A $30K difference is HUGE when U look at the fact that the CTS-V beats the M5 in every performance category except one.. where they are equal. PERCEIVED build quality is exactly that.. PERCEIVED, as every person I kno who owns an M5 or M6 had to have their cars serviced for everything from drive-line issues to electrical problems with the first month of purchase.

What I had a problem with.. and it shows where this PERCIEVED quality comes from... is this line:helpless::


" The Motown way, in contrast, is all flash and Yankee Doodle dandy, the product of designers and marketers who equate "deluxe" with "shiny." Not a piece of trim or a ring of instrument escapes the Vegas patina. Thus, the understated M5 looks and feels far more expensive (and, at a base price of $89,325 including guzzler tax, it is -- almost shockingly so). The CTS-V starts, with guzzler, at $60,700. Brush away the glitter and the Caddy would look far richer."

Some of us like the"SHINE.":shhh: Hence the reason why the Chrome industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. :hmm:

verbs
05-05-09, 06:34 PM
Hey verbs why dont you gimme some of what you're smokin...so far REAL WORLD drivers have shown traps in the low 120's....the V is CAPABLE of 120 traps stock. Not what one or two mags have posted

Where are all these real world drivers that have shown 120mph traps? I said most drivers are trapping under 120mph....please show me where most ARE trapping over 120mph.

verbs
05-11-09, 04:49 AM
Looks like Razorecko is all talk. :D

Luna.
05-11-09, 02:51 PM
I'll never hold a 'grudge' agains another enthusiast be he driving a mustang or if he's driving an m5. As long as theres a thumbs up or a wave its all good.

I would agree with this.