: Motor Trend M5 vs CTS-V Performance Tests



BAZ007
05-13-09, 05:01 AM
Hey guys,

I dont think I have seen these around before, so for your viewing pleasure :thumbsup:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkSmcViN_qs&eurl



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShL8rsBwyXg&eurl

I am Amazed how the M5 Forum JUST CANT TAKE IT, that an almost $30000 USD Cadillac is Performing better, with a very similar Quality, if not better depends on taste ... :yup:

Here is the ongoing discussion about it ... :bigroll: CLICK (http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60-m5-e61-m5-touring-discussion/137566-cadillac-cts-v-vs-bmw-m5-both-manual-trans.html)


In my opinion I would love to see a top speed run CTS-V vs M5 all the way !!! Maybe then someone will come down to reality !!!

NormV
05-13-09, 06:41 AM
Piss 91 octane too! Forced induction love higher octane.


Norm

whisler151
05-13-09, 06:57 AM
Piss 91 octane too! Forced induction love higher octane.


Norm

Here is a stock CTS-V vs a stock M5 on Texas gas (93 octane).

71oVtYI6kDA

todd03blown
05-13-09, 07:42 AM
nice videos!! The V is a performer for sure!!

Street King
05-13-09, 07:50 AM
In that motor trend video, the outcome could've been much uglier for the M5 if the V driver did good shifts. The V bogs down on every shift, Iam not sure if the driver's shifting skill sucks, or he did that on purpose not to piss anyone off :suspect:

I see the second race with the black V is much more realistic

NormV
05-13-09, 08:16 AM
Interior shot would have been nice. Wonder if their policy allows power shifting or no lift shift which the V has?


Norm


In that motor trend video, the outcome could've been much uglier for the M5 if the V driver did good shifts. The V bogs down on every shift, Iam not sure if the driver's shifting skill sucks, or he did that on purpose not to piss anyone off :suspect:

I see the second race with the black V is much more realistic

cmicasa
05-13-09, 09:50 AM
Both the M5 and M3 lovers are in awe of this Cadillac. I can honestly say that I believe that many are simply experiencing a feeling of hurt due to the massive amounts of additional funds they spent on a car that simply cannot handle the "ZR1 Sedan."

Funny they will say that in 2011 BMW will be back with a 600HP upgrade on the current M5.. well isn't it possible that a restructured GM will be willing to perhaps retain it's crown by awaiting that debut.. and re-doing the CTS-V with a swap of the LS9?

jvp
05-13-09, 11:16 AM
well isn't it possible that a restructured GM will be willing to perhaps retain it's crown by awaiting that debut.. and re-doing the CTS-V with a swap of the LS9?

Anything's certainly possible, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a different engine in the V. The LSA's it. Any power increases that do happen (and I have my doubts any will happen) will happen to the LSA itself.

jas

Razorecko
05-13-09, 12:15 PM
gawwwd damn, that is some HORRIBLE shifting in the V car. The youtube video is more of the reality.....unless the V driver left the traction control on and it kept kicking in bogging the V after every shift...seems like the more likely scenario.

Bee iLL
05-13-09, 12:28 PM
I am Amazed how the M5 Forum JUST CANT TAKE IT, that an almost $30000 USD Cadillac is Performing better, with a very similar Quality, if not better depends on taste ... :yup:


WOW! Where on earth did you find the CTS-V for $30,000?

cmicasa
05-13-09, 01:09 PM
Anything's certainly possible, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a different engine in the V. The LSA's it. Any power increases that do happen (and I have my doubts any will happen) will happen to the LSA itself.

jas


I'm just sayin.. and we both kno that 600HP from the LSA is as easy as apple pie. A 44HP gain is tune away

BAZ007
05-13-09, 02:31 PM
WOW! Where on earth did you find the CTS-V for $30,000?


duh, my bad, :duck:, i meant a $30000 USD less

Caddyscat
05-17-09, 04:45 PM
Those guys on the M board are definitely a different breed. I like the fact that I can get more than M5 performance for much less. M5 is a nice car for sure but I like it a lot less now that the V is here.

atdeneve
05-20-09, 07:53 AM
You definitely want to knock some sense into some of them guys on the BMW forums who blindly utter nonsense in order to defend their personal choice in vehicle, however, same shit happens here...

Or on any other model-focused forum for that matter.

Jon
05-28-09, 09:48 PM
Full comparison from Motor Trend:

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

"Yet where it really matters, as a performance sedan, the CTS-V soundly spanks the M5. It's quicker in a straight line, handles better, steers better, even rides better "

MacOSR
05-29-09, 07:50 PM
Hey guys,

I am Amazed how the M5 Forum JUST CANT TAKE IT, that an almost $30000 USD Cadillac is Performing better, with a very similar Quality, if not better depends on taste ... :yup:

Here is the ongoing discussion about it ... :bigroll: CLICK (http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60-m5-e61-m5-touring-discussion/137566-cadillac-cts-v-vs-bmw-m5-both-manual-trans.html)


In my opinion I would love to see a top speed run CTS-V vs M5 all the way !!! Maybe then someone will come down to reality !!!

As a current M5 owner, a former CTS-V owner (gen 1) and someone who is in the market for a new car, I can say that the m5board gives props to the new cts-v and the way you characterize people on the board, such as me, is not accurate.

I think the gen 2 cts-v is a vast improvement over the last one.

The comparison should have been the automatic CTS-V (as I believe it is supposed to be quicker) and the SMG M5 (it is certainly quicker). The 6sp in the current M5 was done to please some US buyers that wouldn't purchase the SMG. The V-10 in the M5 is made to rev, and the SMG is much, much quicker.

With that said: The new CTS-V is QUICKER then the M5. This is a fact! I don't know if it is faster or not? Does it go over 203mph? But does it really matter! I don't think anyone here would care if the CTS-V ONLY went 195mph because they bought the car they wanted!

Both cars are very fine cars and very different cars. I really don't think that many M5 buyers would be tempted to buy a CTS-V. I know there are a couple that have bought a CTS-V while they wait for the next M5.

I guess I just don't understand why some people make this a caddy/bimmer thing. It really isn't...I guess people buy what they like to drive! For now, I will stick to my M5 and wait for the new model next year.

62Jeff
05-29-09, 08:17 PM
"Yet where it really matters, as a performance sedan, the CTS-V soundly spanks the M5. It's quicker in a straight line, handles better, steers better, even rides better "

I still take issue with use of the word "spank" when the cars are so close performance wise, it's only the financial side that makes the CTS-V a better deal.

vperl
05-29-09, 10:35 PM
M5 owners want to use the SMG ? M5

Seems a tad interesting, maybe one of the tuners here in the US ought to get the M5 folks to start the game

proexpert
05-29-09, 10:51 PM
I read the article in the print magazine, nice. Makes me want the V2 even more. Seriously considering kicking out the wife and moving in the V2.

ericpd
05-29-09, 11:03 PM
I read the article in the print magazine, nice. Makes me want the V2 even more. Seriously considering kicking out the wife and moving in the V2.

Watch those chrome exhaust tips. They're more than likely sharp on the inside and may make you bleed!

vperl
05-30-09, 02:11 AM
ot accurate.

The comparison should have been the automatic CTS-V (as I believe it is supposed to be quicker) and the SMG M5 (it is certainly quicker). The 6sp in the current M5 was done to please some US buyers that wouldn't purchase the SMG. The V-10 in the M5 is made to rev, and the SMG is much, much quicker.



*********************************************


I am in the dark here, but maybe someone can explain to me the difference of the SMG M5 and the 2009 V .

I am guessing that the SMG M5 is built in a separate facility , because it would be very hard for the M5 SMG to be built on the regular M5 build line.

The SMG model is like the upgraded model that American tuners
do to the V2, after a owner has it modified, something like an in house "COBRA" builder that is next door and working for BMW.

Seems to me if I am right, I will admit, I do not have a clue if any of this is right or wrong, but .... the M5 SMG is not Produced off the line as a regular produce sedan on the same production line....


How wrong, and incorrect am I ? Probably way off

BAZ007
05-30-09, 03:29 AM
*********************************************


I am in the dark here, but maybe someone can explain to me the difference of the SMG M5 and the 2009 V .

I am guessing that the SMG M5 is built in a separate facility , because it would be very hard for the M5 SMG to be built on the regular M5 build line.

The SMG model is like the upgraded model that American tuners
do to the V2, after a owner has it modified, something like an in house "COBRA" builder that is next door and working for BMW.

Seems to me if I am right, I will admit, I do not have a clue if any of this is right or wrong, but .... the M5 SMG is not Produced off the line as a regular produce sedan on the same production line....


How wrong, and incorrect am I ? Probably way off


I cant tell if you are being sercastic or not ... :bigroll:, however the SMG M5 = the Automatic Version of M5 (Electrohydraulic manual transmission), 6sp = Manual Version.

He is saying that the M5 with the SMG transmission is much faster than the 6sp one, which they should have chose for comparison...

Low_ET
05-30-09, 07:08 AM
Road and Track tested the CTS-V vs. the M5 SMG. It was in a separate article in October 2008. It wasn't the full test, just a road course at Monticello.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6963

Edmunds tested the CTS-V Auto vs. the M5 SMG in December 2008.

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=136636/pageNumber=1

vperl
05-30-09, 10:56 AM
I cant tell if you are being sercastic or not ... :bigroll:, however the SMG M5 = the Automatic Version of M5 (Electrohydraulic manual transmission), 6sp = Manual Version.

He is saying that the M5 with the SMG transmission is much faster than the 6sp one, which they should have chose for comparison...
**********************

I was wondering if anyone reads the M5'ers cry " we got raw deal"

MacOSR
05-31-09, 12:47 PM
*********************************************


I am in the dark here, but maybe someone can explain to me the difference of the SMG M5 and the 2009 V .

I am guessing that the SMG M5 is built in a separate facility , because it would be very hard for the M5 SMG to be built on the regular M5 build line.

The SMG model is like the upgraded model that American tuners
do to the V2, after a owner has it modified, something like an in house "COBRA" builder that is next door and working for BMW.

Seems to me if I am right, I will admit, I do not have a clue if any of this is right or wrong, but .... the M5 SMG is not Produced off the line as a regular produce sedan on the same production line....


How wrong, and incorrect am I ? Probably way off

I can understand how you don't know these things. It is so hard to keep up with what is new, or even what is a few years old (SMG).

There are many good sources out there for information on the M5, what is has, and what SMG means. I would suggest googling SMG or "What is SMG". This might help you understand these things!

vperl
05-31-09, 01:20 PM
I can understand how you don't know these things. It is so hard to keep up with what is new, or even what is a few years old (SMG).

There are many good sources out there for information on the M5, what is has, and what SMG means. I would suggest googling SMG or "What is SMG". This might help you understand these things!


*************************************

ThankYou so much, I will snatch that pebble from you soon.

marktanner
05-31-09, 02:25 PM
SMG stands for Sequential Manual Gearbox. It has 7 speeds, and the M5 was designed to use this transmission. The shift speed is programmable to numerous positions, and there is some integration with throttle response, too. It is technically a manual transmission, but uses paddle shifters and has no clutch pedal. It is fully sequential, so there is no gear skipping. There is an automatic mode, but is universally decried as very jerky, and most people consider it to be pretty much unusable. The manual shifts can be jerky as well. This transmission does it's best work on the race track, not on the street.

The manual transmission is an afterthought, developed from the previous M5 as a request from US buyers who were less than thrilled with the SMG. The basic transmission of the SMG could not be made into a true manual, due to the gear order, but this transmission was designed for the torque characteristics of the V-10, and the 6-speed manual was not. Further, at least the early manual M5s could not run with traction control defeated, unlike the SMG (or the V). This was detrimental to ultimate handling, as was noted in the Car and Driver test. The M5 apparently understeers too much, unless you turn off the TC, which then lets you get the tail out and turn in better. I think the current manual transmission cars can now defeat the traction control, but I'm not 100% sure of this, because of the Motor Trend video results.

BMW offers the 6-speed stick as standard on the M3, and now offers a DSG as well. The double clutch gearbox is far smoother than the SMG, and does automatic better, but still not as good as a torque converter. One can expect that the next generation of M5s will offer this transmission as well. While these new transmissions are excellent, they still lack the driver involvement of a true manual that some of us still crave and demand.

ericpd
05-31-09, 08:57 PM
SMG stands for Sequential Manual Gearbox. It has 7 speeds, and the M5 was designed to use this transmission. The shift speed is programmable to numerous positions, and there is some integration with throttle response, too. It is technically a manual transmission, but uses paddle shifters and has no clutch pedal. It is fully sequential, so there is no gear skipping. There is an automatic mode, but is universally decried as very jerky, and most people consider it to be pretty much unusable. The manual shifts can be jerky as well. This transmission does it's best work on the race track, not on the street.

The manual transmission is an afterthought, developed from the previous M5 as a request from US buyers who were less than thrilled with the SMG. The basic transmission of the SMG could not be made into a true manual, due to the gear order, but this transmission was designed for the torque characteristics of the V-10, and the 6-speed manual was not. Further, at least the early manual M5s could not run with traction control defeated, unlike the SMG (or the V). This was detrimental to ultimate handling, as was noted in the Car and Driver test. The M5 apparently understeers too much, unless you turn off the TC, which then lets you get the tail out and turn in better. I think the current manual transmission cars can now defeat the traction control, but I'm not 100% sure of this, because of the Motor Trend video results.

BMW offers the 6-speed stick as standard on the M3, and now offers a DSG as well. The double clutch gearbox is far smoother than the SMG, and does automatic better, but still not as good as a torque converter. One can expect that the next generation of M5s will offer this transmission as well. While these new transmissions are excellent, they still lack the driver involvement of a true manual that some of us still crave and demand.

We all know what you mean, but technically, neither the M3 or M5 have automatic transmissions. BMW only offer one automatic transmission for passenger cars,... the 7 speed steptronic or something like that,... it's not offered as an option for any M vehicle. Everything you say is 100% spot on, except when you use "automatic" to describe the SMG and DCT. On the surface it may seem like a trivial distinction, but technically a big difference. SMG and DCT = automated!

LV_V
05-31-09, 10:20 PM
We all know what you mean, but technically, neither the M3 or M5 have automatic transmissions. BMW only offer one automatic transmission for passenger cars,... the 7 speed steptronic or something like that,... it's not offered as an option for any M vehicle. Everything you say is 100% spot on, except when you use "automatic" to describe the SMG and DCT. On the surface it may seem like a trivial distinction, but technically a big difference. SMG and DCT = automated!
So you're saying that with the M3 nor M5 you cannot start the car, put it into "drive", and take off without having to MANUALLY shift the car?

Ok pal. Go back to sippin your German Juice :rolleyes:

(just messin with ya btw haha)

concorso
05-31-09, 10:58 PM
We all know what you mean, but technically, neither the M3 or M5 have automatic transmissions. BMW only offer one automatic transmission for passenger cars,... the 7 speed steptronic or something like that,... it's not offered as an option for any M vehicle. Everything you say is 100% spot on, except when you use "automatic" to describe the SMG and DCT. On the surface it may seem like a trivial distinction, but technically a big difference. SMG and DCT = automated!




Re: Motor Trend M5 vs CTS-V Performance Tests
SMG stands for Sequential Manual Gearbox. It has 7 speeds, and the M5 was designed to use this transmission. The shift speed is programmable to numerous positions, and there is some integration with throttle response, too. It is technically a manual transmission, but uses paddle shifters and has no clutch pedal. It is fully sequential, so there is no gear skipping. There is an automatic mode, but is universally decried as very jerky, and most people consider it to be pretty much unusable. The manual shifts can be jerky as well. This transmission does it's best work on the race track, not on the street.



I thought he was very clear about the differences.

ericpd
05-31-09, 11:47 PM
So you're saying that with the M3 nor M5 you cannot start the car, put it into "drive", and take off without having to MANUALLY shift the car?

Ok pal. Go back to sippin your German Juice :rolleyes:

(just messin with ya btw haha)

No, that's not what I said at all. Yes there's a "park" of sorts and a "drive" of sorts,... and yes, you don't have to shift gears if you choose not to. Denying that or confirming that was never a part of my post. The point was the SMG and the DCT are technically referred to as having an "automated mode". Referring to them as "automatics" is technically wrong. No juice,... just a little exposure thru reading and listening to those who know. But again, we all knew what point the poster was making,... whether he used automatic or automated. Calm down!

marktanner
06-01-09, 12:26 AM
Technically, any transmission that shifts by itself without driver control is an automatic, whether it be an "automated manual", a torque converter, or even a CVT. The BMW M5 has an automatic mode in the SMG, so technically it is an automatic, even if it is never used that way.

Conversely, the BMW shifts far faster in SMG mode than the torque converter in the V can, because as a manual, that is what it was designed to do, unlike the Caddy. When I first walked into a Cadillac dealership in 2008 and asked to drive a manual, the salesperson said that all CTSs were manuals, because of the manual mode on the auto. I had to explain that I wanted to drive a car with three pedals and a true stick shift. I drove a first generation Smart car in Italy a few years ago, and that car had a terrible SMG, but it had no automatic function so it was still a manual, even with it's automated clutch and sequential shifter (I wish it was an automatic, because it was no fun as a manual).

Clearly, the lines are becoming blurred when it comes to transmissions. I like the fact that Cadillac offers an excellent torque converter automatic for those who want one, and an equally terrific manual for those who want to shift for themselves. These transmissions excel at their primary missions, unlike SMGs and DSGs, which ultimately are compromises. None of the other manufacturers of supersedans offer these choices, and Cadillac should be applauded for offering the choice.

ericpd
06-01-09, 02:52 AM
OK,... whatever you wanna say. But I just looked it up, and the distinction between an automatic transmission and an automated transmission is clear. It goes something like this,... the automatic transmission contains it's shifting brains and mechics internally, usually using varying levels of hydraulic and barometric pressure to determine shift points. An automated transmission is a spline based manual transmission that is fitted with an external component to automate manual shifting. Visit BMW's site and go to the tech section, there's a really good explanation distinquishing to the two approaches. There's also some good info on the two terminologies on AMG's site as well. As for the sale rep who told you that an automatic transmission fitted with paddles is a manual,... well you should go back to that dealership, find that rep and punch him dead in the face. For lying to you and for implying that you are that damn stupid. Oh and yeah, one more thing,... MSG technology is hardly a compromise. Their heritage is straight from Formula 1. If anything, the approach is the best of both of those worlds. If anything is a compromise, it's the existence of the torque converter. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to have one, but it's very creation was borne out of an effort to compromise.

concorso
06-01-09, 09:53 AM
Earlier SMG's were most definitely a compromise. They compromised smoothness for performance. Early versions just didnt work as daily drivers, if you were use to and wanted smooth uneventful shifts in stop and go traffic, or just doddling around town. One argument is do you base the label 'automatic' on how its built mechanically, or do you judge it based on driver input? To the average person, an SMG can be either, depending on how you look at it.

ericpd
06-01-09, 10:51 AM
Earlier SMG's were most definitely a compromise. They compromised smoothness for performance. Early versions just didnt work as daily drivers, if you were use to and wanted smooth uneventful shifts in stop and go traffic, or just doddling around town. One argument is do you base the label 'automatic' on how its built mechanically, or do you judge it based on driver input? To the average person, an SMG can be either, depending on how you look at it.

Wrong,... compromises between what? I will agree however that earlier attempts to adapt race proven sequential shifting transmission systems for street and civilian use were clunky to say the least. You're absolutely right, they didn't work well for daily driving or in traffic. But sequential shifting technology was never a compromise. I ask again,... a compromise between what?

Look,... 'automatic' and 'automated' are not interchangeable terms. They represent two distinctly different approaches to putting power to the ground at the right gear ratio and at the right moment. I think the main problem here is that we're confusing transmission types with shifting modes. Automatic vs manual speaks more to the type of transmission, where automated vs manual speaks more to a shifting mode. An automatic transmission may have a manual mode where the driver can select up and down shifts pretty much as he/she wishes, but having that ability doesn't change the type of box it is,... it's still an automatic box. An automatic transmission implies an automated mode by default. These days, it becoming more common to see manual transmissions married to external components enabling automated shifting modes. So yes,... the automatic label has more to do with the box itself, and the automated label has everything to do with shifting methods, regardless of transmission type.

It's all a play on words I guess you could say, which is why I prefaced everything I said with the word 'technically'. I also began my post with acknowledging that while the use of 'automatic' in this context (SMG and DCT) was technically inaccurate,... still we all knew what the poster meant.

concorso
06-01-09, 12:57 PM
Wrong,... compromises between what? I will agree however that earlier attempts to adapt race proven sequential shifting transmission systems for street and civilian use were clunky to say the least. You're absolutely right, they didn't work well for daily driving or in traffic. But sequential shifting technology was never a compromise. I ask again,... a compromise between what? The compromise is that you give up shift smoothness versus a well programmed automatic AND you give up a little control over getting power to the road versus a classic manual trans.


Look,... 'automatic' and 'automated' are not interchangeable terms. They represent two distinctly different approaches to putting power to the ground at the right gear ratio and at the right moment. I think the main problem here is that we're confusing transmission types with shifting modes. Automatic vs manual speaks more to the type of transmission, where automated vs manual speaks more to a shifting mode. An automatic transmission may have a manual mode where the driver can select up and down shifts pretty much as he/she wishes, but having that ability doesn't change the type of box it is,... it's still an automatic box. An automatic transmission implies an automated mode by default. These days, it becoming more common to see manual transmissions married to external components enabling automated shifting modes. So yes,... the automatic label has more to do with the box itself, and the automated label has everything to do with shifting methods, regardless of transmission type.

It's all a play on words I guess you could say, which is why I prefaced everything I said with the word 'technically'. I also began my post with acknowledging that while the use of 'automatic' in this context (SMG and DCT) was technically inaccurate,... still we all knew what the poster meant.Look? lol... :) I must be missing something here. In his original post, marktanner didnt say it was an automatic. He said it (SMG) was technically a manual that has an automatic mode. Im still unsure where he's misusing the term 'automatic'?

And like I said, to the average owner, an automated manual is still an automatic. It doesn't matter how it works mechanically, only that it can be driven without shifting. But yes, I agree its simply an argument about wording, or the improper use of.

ericpd
06-01-09, 03:27 PM
The compromise is that you give up shift smoothness versus a well programmed automatic AND you give up a little control over getting power to the road versus a classic manual trans.
Look? lol... :) I must be missing something here. In his original post, marktanner didnt say it was an automatic. He said it (SMG) was technically a manual that has an automatic mode. Im still unsure where he's misusing the term 'automatic'?

So basically you're talking about compromises a buyer must make. I thought we were speaking of compromises in technology. I read that sequential shifting (SMG and DCT) as a technology was a compromise approach. Sorry. I guess you could look at a manual transmission having the ability to automate shifting for you as a compromise nestled between an aging and inefficient technology employing torque converters and planetary gearing schemes on the one end, and the longevity and efficient technology of spline based transmissions on the other end, especially from a buyers perspective. Particularly if that buyer is non-enthusiasts with absolutely no interest in performance. One attracts comfort, multitasking and laziness at a cost while the other attracts hands-on-input, performance and sport at a whole other set of costs. But most would look at this as a blending from the best of both worlds more than a compromise.

Yes,... I read the quote the same way you did, which is why I responded that according to the industry, a more technically accurate way of stating his point would be, "...was technically a manual that has an automated mode". Like I said before, automated speaks to a mode of shifting and 'automatic' speaks to the type of transmission regardless of shifting modes made available to the box. Go look it up. There's plenty of stuff out there that'll prolly do a better job of explaining how the industry differentiates between the two than apparently I'm doing. To accuse marktanner of misusing terms is a bit of a stretch. No way am I attempting to scold anyone based on word use,... that's crazy! This is why I stressed the word 'technically' AND why I consistently stated that we all understood what the point was, and sense we all understood what the point was, all obligations of successful communication were met. Please,... let's not get hung up on word play and symmantics.


And like I said, to the average owner, an automated manual is still an automatic. It doesn't matter how it works mechanically, only that it can be driven without shifting. But yes, I agree its simply an argument about wording, or the improper use of.

Well that depends on how you define 'average'. Maybe you're right when considering the average automobile owner, but I'll guarantee you the average BMW M owner knows quite well the difference as does the average owner of ANY car employing this technology. Among car enthusiast, folks like us, I will further wager that 85% of us know the difference whether we have the technology in our cars or not.

marktanner
06-02-09, 01:34 AM
Let's put all the semantics to rest, already. The important thing to note is that the SMG type of transmission, while theoretically being capable of being all things to all people, in practice has been unsatisfactory in many modes, and therefore ACTS like a compromise. While some of the latest "SMG" types from Ferrari and Lambo are getting to be pretty good, those manufacturers are starting to transition to DSG technology, as it shifts faster and smoother, with much more acceptable automatic (or automated) modes. Maserati improved their latest models by utilizing a torque converter instead of the SMG, to universal acclaim. SMG technology works great on the track, but-- let's face it-- these cars all live on the street. DSG looks to be the future of automated manuals. They can be quite good, and can even offer superior performance. And I still have no desire to drive a car so equipped, because for me it is just not as satisfying to drive as a traditional three pedal manual! Personal preference reigns, as long as we still have a choice.

RWFJR
06-02-09, 05:16 PM
The V should have had auto. It is quicker than the best professional driver as the stats show!