: IL review of BMW M5



simgolfer
10-04-12, 03:32 PM
I just read the Edmunds Inside Line article on the new BMW M5. Given it is $30K more than a CTS-V, I was expecting a glowing review, but here is the last part...

"But it basically comes down to this: Somehow the white coats in Munich made the 2013 BMW M5 more powerful and quicker and they've given it more grip, but they forgot something the emotion. Where's the excitement? Where's the visceral thrill? Where's the M5's sinister evil twin?

Oh, that's right, it's down the street at the Cadillac dealer. It's called the CTS-V."

Houdini
10-04-12, 03:58 PM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BURN! That's hilarious.

pat2t2f
10-04-12, 04:17 PM
I just read the article. The first paragraph was damning too. They were disappointed and underwhelmed a few comparisons to the V

----------

I forgot. $107,695 out the door will all options. At that price I don't want to be underwhelmed. $26,000 more than a V

neuronbob
10-04-12, 07:45 PM
I don't usually respond to the opportunity to trash-talk BMWs. However, this article is such a put-down of the M5 in favor of the CTS-V that I can't help but gloat.

IN YO FACE BMW! :)

larry arizona
10-04-12, 08:22 PM
:thumbsup: Awesome. My thoughts exactly.

----------

I can't wait to find one on the street and see if they will go........

Trapspeed
10-04-12, 08:39 PM
That's outstanding! Gotta love it.

M5eater
10-04-12, 11:09 PM
IL is one of my new favorite automotive reviewers. Anyone not afraid to spit in everyone else's face and call the F10 for what it is wins in my book.

thebigjimsho
10-05-12, 12:29 AM
Holy poop.

M5eater
10-05-12, 08:46 AM
Holy poop.
I mean it's a totally honest review.

They clearly say this is a smoking fast sedan... they also clearly say that it's worse in a lot of ways that the E60 was. It has the same problems of being softer, and more mass-appealing like the 3 series does, but no one wants to call them out on it..

until now.

larry arizona
10-05-12, 09:57 AM
Wow, Even being as anti BMW (only due to general OEM and Owner arrogance) fan, I have to say that was a tough article to read. Wow they really don't like the M5 at all and the constant reference to mostly better performance in near all catagories of the 4 year old CTS-V.

I found myself feeling bad for BMW fan......... Facts are hard to swallow and I feel bad for peeps spending their hard earned $$$ on something lesser.

highlights of article:

-Lethargic engine until 3000rpms (Turbos are poo out of the gate)
-15MPG city/22MPGhwy/17MPG comb 15.1MPG edmunds avg....... Hmmm the 6M V has been doing this for 4 years. ( I got 16.1 MPG city average and VERY spirited over 11,000 miles)
-514RWHP/475RWTQ is pretty good but yet the M5 traps at 115MPH The V traps at least 118MPH with less RWHP and RWTQ
-M5 0.93 lateral G V 0.92 Add PSS tires and the V will surpass that. One advantage to 4 year newer technology (PSS over PS2)
-M5 slalom 68.9 vs V 71.1 pretty big win for the V
-0-60 M5 6M 4.5 V 6M 4.5 DCT vs V 6A same (both a few 10nths quicker ) as well. Tie.
-1/4 mile times same
-added 249 lbs over previous M5
-Braking goes to the V
-If I read this right M5 did a knock off of the MR suspension???? 4 years too late
-Long and rather notchy shifter/trans, I love the TR6060
-Sorry but the fake engine noise is the embarrasment of the year. Come on BMW what are you thinking???

So if I am counting right, CTS-V is 2 for 2 in the mag comparisons. MT said they would rather have/drive the V and now Edmunds says the M5's evil sinister twin is down the street at the Cadillac dealer, it's called the CTS-V

muuuuttttthhhhaaaaaffeeeerssssss (Mr Chow from the hangover!!!)

McGuffy
10-05-12, 10:05 AM
The comments on these reviews are always the most entertaining. Take this little gem:

"Let me say first that I own a Bmw (07 328xi coupe) so I'm a little biased, but I'm a little suprised at this review. I don't know why the constant comparisons to the Caddy. I know they're in the same luxo-sport category but any one who has been in a Bmw then a Caddy knows that the Bmw will still be on the road driving strong in 20 years (with minimal wear on the leather I might add), where the Caddy will be smoking from its tailpipes and parked in some trailer park."

Is this guy insane? Brainwashing their loyal followers into believing BMW's are reliable is perhaps BMW's greatest engineering feat. Social engineering that is.

M5eater
10-05-12, 10:17 AM
I think this highlights the ignorance within the automotive community .
Or it's Bias, whichever you feel like thinking today.

I came to the realiziation years ago that even people who call themselves autmotive enthusiasts or 'car people' might not know anything outside how to change their air filter, or that they *do* know how to rebuild a small block but want to troll everyone else anyway because... internetz.

I'm not saying we're all genisus's here.. my recent threads clearly say I have a lot to learn, but I like to think I have broad-spectrum knowledge and the insight to be able to be accurate when comparing one vehicle to another.

The important thing to consider though, is that there are people like him in every brand.

So yes, there are insane brainwashed fanboys, and there are also intelegent level headed people that know that the F10 is a flop.. That's why there are more than 1-2 threads asking that question on m5board.

It's just usually the idiots are the loud ones, because they can't make any argument stand on itself, so lets go comment on a review or something where my input is little more than an insignificant twat that'll be lost in 5 minuites and no one can see how ridiclious I am afterwards.

Trying to argue with someone like that or pointing out what their say as ridilicous is like pointing to the drunk guy at the bar who's too trashed to even stand and call him out on his mis-quote of some horrible pickup line.

Who cares?

JFJr
10-05-12, 10:26 AM
I owned 2 BMW's back in the mid-to-late 1980's. They were maintenance nightmares, but I suspect more of "driver's cars" than now. If BMW tries to resurrect the "ultimate driving machine" slogan, the laughter would resonate in a lot of places.

Jud

Trionalaw
10-05-12, 11:06 AM
I am somewhat confused. The CTS V has more horsepower and more torque but gets crushed on the dyno versus yet again trying to make the M5 a car for the masses as opposed to the enthusiasts .

http://www.performancecarweb.com/showthread.php?t=121

I'm sure someone can explain this on this erudite form. It never ceases to amaze me.

Thanks and enjoy your weekend,

Jim

----------

Can this be correct? If so, I won't even look at the next M3. Not that I necessarily would in light of what I think the ATS-V will be like. Much the same as Ferrari not offering manual transmissions. I don't care that only 5% of Ferrari buyers my them, it should be available. The quote is from the Inside Line with you.

Like the Nissan 370Z, the M5 manual blips the throttle for you on downshifts when the mapping is set to either Efficient or Sport — you're on your own in Sport Plus. And in a blow to fragile drivers' egos everywhere, the system perfectly picks the exact amount of throttle blippage.

Regards,

Jim

larry arizona
10-05-12, 11:08 AM
I am somewhat confused. The CTS V has more horsepower and more torque but gets crushed on the dyno versus yet again trying to make the M5 a car for the masses as opposed to the enthusiasts .

http://www.performancecarweb.com/showthread.php?t=121

I'm sure someone can explain this on this erudite form. It never ceases to amaze me.

Thanks and enjoy your weekend,

Jim

Jim, The F10 M5 has higher RWHP and RWTQ as measured by the dyno and apparently its a german thing to under state the advertised crank horsepower (BMW is sneaky :bigroll:) The M5 put down 514RWHP/475 RWTQ which is about 50RWHP/25RWTQ higher than a stock V. But guess what, it does not outperform a stock V.

My theory still stands that a SC is superior to an equal TT on the 1/4 mile. SC engines come on much quicker than a TT and may only give up to a TT on the big end.

M5eater
10-05-12, 11:16 AM
Jim, The F10 M5 has higher RWHP and RWTQ as measured by the dyno and apparently its a german thing to under state the advertised crank horsepower (BMW is sneaky :bigroll:) The M5 put down 514RWHP/475 RWTQ which is about 50RWHP/25RWTQ higher than a stock V. But guess what, it does not outperform a stock V.

My theory still stands that a SC is superior to an equal TT on the 1/4 mile. SC engines come on much quicker than a TT and may only give up to a TT on the big end.

Well, I would agree and disagree, the V/E of a S/C basicly remains the same as a N/A engine since the spooling of the S/C is directly proportional to how fast the crank is spinning.

Turbo engines can make more torque even lower than a S/C or N/A engine can since the function of their power output is the turbocharger, and you can put a baby snail on that that compresses air quickly with realitvely low RPM's

The problem *I* see is that the S83tu doesn't take advantage of that somehow.. it looks very close to the powercurve (albeit streached out longer) to a certian other powertrain..

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/blmlozz/Dyno-1.jpg
http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/bmw/m5/2013/fe/2013_bmw_m5_ill_fe_923123_600.jpg

What they've done, is create a 4.4TT V8 that acts like a high-strung, big cubbed N/A engine that can spin to 8K RPM.. except it doesn't *quite* beat the big-cubbed engine where it counts--- down low.
http://www.insideline.com/bmw/m5/2013/2013-bmw-m5-dyno-tested.html

^note IL's dyno was very pecular with power loss across 9 runs.. which was very odd since they ruled out HS and it came right back up to their first run on the 9th pull.

Maybe because there's an extra 1.8L's the LSA has, or maybe because they're parallel turbochargers and not sequential, I'm not sure.

btw..

here's the BF thread on the review;(this is where all the level-headed people post)
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=649850

larry arizona
10-05-12, 11:24 AM
Mr M5,

I call myself an auto enthusiast and like to think I have the credentials to back it up. But I am a biased person based on what I have seen over the last 25 years. I grew up a Chevy guy, an american muscle car enthusiast. I was put off by the foreign OEM's and their superior engineering attitudes. It was this ideal that motivated me to become an engineer and compete in the engineering argument.

The fact that BMW and the other German OEM's for that matter demand that you must get your vehicle maintained or serviced by only the dealer network is an utter and complete farce. For god sake they made several Seinfeld episodes based on this very point. But some how the masses bought into the notion that if BMW tells me that I am not capable of servicing or wrenching on my own car and their special mechanics, by gosh those BMW's must be good. BRAINWASHING.

But then I realized most car fanatics can't even come close to working on a lawnmower or garbage disposal much less a car. Those that can wrench are rare, probably 1% of the car enthusiast population and that is OK. If you can it opens up the ballgame for choices. I chose the V because GM made an incredible machine that was affordable and I can wrench on. Most V owners are thankful for this.

But the real kicker too me is that my V can put it to a F10M5 all day long and the DB who bought that F10M5 certainly has more money than me and he has less knowledge of what he has or even lacks in his car.

It is a great feeling to understand the V, wrench on the V, and then kick ass in the V instead of being a blind sheep buying a car that he has no idea about.

Sorry, my 2 cents.............(stepping off my soap box :bigroll:)

M5eater
10-05-12, 11:34 AM
Jim, The F10 M5 has higher RWHP and RWTQ as measured by the dyno and apparently its a german thing to under state the advertised crank horsepower (BMW is sneaky ) The M5 put down 514RWHP/475 RWTQ which is about 50RWHP/25RWTQ higher than a stock V. But guess what, it does not outperform a stock V.

My theory still stands that a SC is superior to an equal TT on the 1/4 mile. SC engines come on much quicker than a TT and may only give up to a TT on the big end.


Acutally it's not.. unless you want to call < 15 hp 'under rated' with tempreature variations.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/assets_c/2012/03/ctsv-thumb-717x477-115399.jpg

The two cars, on the same dyno, in fall/spring weather are almost identical. If anything, the LSA is making more torque sooner than the S83tu is..



The fact that BMW and the other German OEM's for that matter demand that you must get your vehicle maintained or serviced by only the dealer network is an utter and complete farce. For god sake they made several Seinfeld episodes based on this very point. But some how the masses bought into the notion that if BMW tells me that I am not capable of servicing or wrenching on my own car and their special mechanics, by gosh those BMW's must be good. BRAINWASHING.

to be fair.. you need a lot of Special service tools and a lot of manuals to work on a german car. I worked on a 15 year old chassis (my B5 A4/S4) and I *had* to buy a $200 Vag-com to work out most of my issues.

Your normal wrencher will not be able to fix the majority of issues on a modern german vehicle. it just won't happen.


I chose the V because GM made an incredible machine that was affordable and I can wrench on. Most V owners are thankful for this.

But the real kicker too me is that my V can put it to a F10M5 all day long and the DB who bought that F10M5 certainly has more money than me and he has less knowledge of what he has or even lacks in his car.

It is a great feeling to understand the V, wrench on the V, and then kick ass in the V instead of being a blind sheep buying a car that he has no idea about.


You know. I'm not going to lie, if I made another 50K a year, I'd be in an M5. The CTS-V is great for me because I don't, because I can work on it, the parts are cheap, I know shit's not going to break and leave me stranded because of the car's design faults (that battery in the black car wasn't Cadillac's fault, that could happen to anyone..) I know that there are so many people that acutally *do* work on it that major issues are somewhere here on the forums or someone knowledgeable is a thread away. Ultimately though, it's a compromise. my hot-rodder spirit won over my luxury-sedan lust.

But if I made another 50K a year, I wouldn't have to worry about that. I'd be enjoying the superb seats, the fantastic interior, the gadgets, the craftsmanship, and I'd have someone else working on it who gets paid $150/hour to put on a stupid exhaust. I might miss some of the driving pleasure the V provides, but I'd be enjoying it on the track more often instead of 'getting by' going to work to pay it off in 6 years and *then* trying to enjoy it with the extra $1200 a month I save.

opinions change when you acutally drive a car though, as I haven't driven an F10 anything yet, I can't say for sure my seintiments would remain the same, but I *do* know that I miss my german cars for several reasons that, unlimited funds aside, I likely wouldn't hesistate to step right back into one, even a slower one, because the more I drive the V, the more I realize that 506whp sounds great in theory, but I acutally had more fun in my 280AWHP S4. You should drive the car that's the most fun, not necessarly the one that's 2/10ths faster.

The CTS-V is a very,very good car, my ownership of 2 should be proof enough that I believe that firmly, but it has it's faults. it does 1 thing very well. Sports sedan. It does luxury sedan as an afterthought almost, a decent one, but an afterthought.

It's kind of a weird perception now that I've layed that all out.

Which would you rather have? A situation where you can DIY and be an everday man with a 556HP sedan, or a successful person that drives an M5, and has the time to enjoy it as these cars are ment to be enjoyed?

larry arizona
10-05-12, 12:01 PM
Great read of the Bimmer forums. Wow most are taking it well and saying BMW f'd up.

Also, did I read that right that the 7:55:00 ring time for the F10M5 is possibly not true?????

Xaqtly
10-05-12, 12:04 PM
-514RWHP/475RWTQ is pretty good but yet the M5 traps at 115MPH The V traps at least 118MPH with less RWHP and RWTQ

I honestly don't know how they got a trap speed that low. From what I've seen the *average* for the F10 M5 is around 120, with a lot of people hitting 121, and I've see one 122 MPH trap. Completely stock. Car & Driver even got a 122 MPH trap speed out of it. It's not slower than a stock V, it's almost as fast as a Z06. Same with 0-60, motor trend got a 3.7 out of it. Inside Line is obviously doing something wrong, nobody else is getting numbers that low out of it.

Just saying, the evidence shows that the M5 is actually significantly faster than the V, stock to stock. I'd still rather drive the V.

Trionalaw
10-05-12, 01:52 PM
As always, thanks, Larry,

so I guess the M5 is running close to 600 horsepower and torque?

Much appreciated.

Jim

----------

Larry,

Then the M5 must be running 600 hp and 600 pound feet of torque, don't you think?

Enjoy your weekend,

Jim

----------

Larry,

I guess the M5 must be running closer to 600 hp and 600 pound feet of torque.

simgolfer
10-05-12, 01:54 PM
To add insult to injury, since you can't buy an M5 right now anyway due to a stop-sale order, here is the issue now being released by BMW on the TT V8.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "a manufacturing process error" could cause the oil pump's driveshaft to separate from its rotor, leading "to a sudden loss of oil pressure causing the possibility of complete engine failure, resulting in an engine stall-like condition, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash."

I am very happy with the LSA.

larry arizona
10-05-12, 02:01 PM
Jim,

somewhere in that range at the crankshaft.

McGuffy
10-05-12, 02:08 PM
But if I made another 50K a year, I wouldn't have to worry about that. I'd be enjoying the superb seats, the fantastic interior, the gadgets, the craftsmanship, and I'd have someone else working on it who gets paid $150/hour to put on a stupid exhaust. I might miss some of the driving pleasure the V provides, but I'd be enjoying it on the track more often instead of 'getting by' going to work to pay it off in 6 years and *then* trying to enjoy it with the extra $1200 a month I save.

...

The CTS-V is a very,very good car, my ownership of 2 should be proof enough that I believe that firmly, but it has it's faults. it does 1 thing very well. Sports sedan. It does luxury sedan as an afterthought almost, a decent one, but an afterthought.

It's kind of a weird perception now that I've layed that all out.

Which would you rather have? A situation where you can DIY and be an everday man with a 556HP sedan, or a successful person that drives an M5, and has the time to enjoy it as these cars are ment to be enjoyed?

I don't understand this? I don't think I'd call a $70K car an "everyday man's" car - and you can buy an M5 used in just about any price range you want. The M5 is luxury with sport added, the V is sport with luxury added. The comparison is almost moot, except that these 2 are considered segment competitors. But to suggest that the M5 is somehow an entire class above the V is just hard to swallow in any form.

larry arizona
10-05-12, 02:08 PM
I honestly don't know how they got a trap speed that low. From what I've seen the *average* for the F10 M5 is around 120, with a lot of people hitting 121, and I've see one 122 MPH trap. Completely stock. Car & Driver even got a 122 MPH trap speed out of it. It's not slower than a stock V, it's almost as fast as a Z06. Same with 0-60, motor trend got a 3.7 out of it. Inside Line is obviously doing something wrong, nobody else is getting numbers that low out of it.

Just saying, the evidence shows that the M5 is actually significantly faster than the V, stock to stock. I'd still rather drive the V.

I stole this from another post by one of our V bretheren on this forum...... but it may answer why C/D had improved times on the M5.........


"Each car magazine is using different method of testing cars.
For example this is how Car and Driver is doing the acceleration testing:
"To eliminate the effects of weather on performance, we employ proprietary empirical correction factors to adjust all results to dry air at 14.7 psi and 60 degrees Fahrenheit using PsyCalc 98 software (www.linric.com) to crunch the weather data. Since cars run best in cold dense air, our correction tends to add time to results generated in low-temperature, high-pressure conditions and subtract time from hot-weather, low-pressure tests. To cancel the effects of the wind, all acceleration tests are run in both directions; the best runs in each direction are then averaged.

Other car magazines simply report best times not average times with correction factors.

So you can see that it is hard to do realistic comparison when cars are tested under different condition by different drivers."

M5eater
10-05-12, 02:37 PM
I don't understand this? I don't think I'd call a $70K car an "everyday man's" car - and you can buy an M5 used in just about any price range you want. The M5 is luxury with sport added, the V is sport with luxury added. The comparison is almost moot, except that these 2 are considered segment competitors. But to suggest that the M5 is somehow an entire class above the V is just hard to swallow in any form.

Used M5's come with headaches most buyers of this segment don't want, infact, I was EXACTLY one of those people. You can also pickup a V2 for the price of a 300C or Taurus SHO?



The M5 is luxury with sport added, the V is sport with luxury added.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that.. For all intents and purposes, the M5 *is* faster than the V2.. every other car magazine places it ahead (mostly) of the CTS-V. This review is unique in that they don't just ramble on and quote figures. They complain about the body roll, the vagueness of steering and lack of ballz from the engine down low. I'm unsure what happened with their car, but it would be a tall order to say that multiple other reviewers are dead wrong and IL is the accurate source here.

Have you sat in an E60 or seen an F10 and compared it to a CTS-V? There are certain places I would say the 1999 A6 sitting out in my driveway is better built than my $70K cadillac. With respect to performance, the CTS-V is on-par with the M5. In every other area, it comes close, but falls short. I've seen this with my own eyes on it's predecessors, this isn't some incoherent rambling.

I'll give you a perfect example..

Check the door sills at the bottom of your V.

You'll find that;
1 The front driver's has a thin(cheap looking) piece of aluminum with an embossed V logo
and
2 that the passenger doors have nothing at all.

This is the sill of a F10 M5
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7270/7055775025_6a53aa9e22_z.jpg

and guess what? The passenger doors have sills like this too!

pat2t2f
10-05-12, 03:27 PM
Here is my opinion on the differences between the quality behind the V and the M5. People complain that the V is inferior (and it might be) but if Cadillac spent the money on the car to improve the build quality those same people would say, "I'm not spending $90,000 on a Cadillac. For that price I could get an M5.". I guess my point is, some people are never happy.

simgolfer
10-05-12, 05:07 PM
My last car was an E60 5 series so I can attest to the superior build quality of the Bimmer over my V. But my V has not had any mechanical problems that led to multiple dealer visits and stays like the Bimmer. So whether it's an apples to oranges comparison as some in this thread think it is, both cars (and probably all cars in general) have their weakness. But at least my V starts up every day and runs great.

McGuffy
10-05-12, 05:39 PM
You'll find that;
1 The front driver's has a thin(cheap looking) piece of aluminum with an embossed V logo
and
2 that the passenger doors have nothing at all.


and guess what? The passenger doors have sills like this too!

My coupe's passenger door does have a V sill plate, but that aside, I'm not arguing that there might be a bit more glitz in a car that costs $30k more - I'm saying that you can't call a $100k car "elite" and a $70k car "every day". $70k is still a lot of money to most people and places the V well out of "every day" status was my only point.

When I bought my coupe, I also considered (and drove) the Audi R8 and Jaguar XK among others, and I chose the V because it is faster, roomier, and better looking than all of them in my opinion. The price was not the deciding factor (I never even briefly considered BMW - far too bland and unexciting for the money). And all of the fit and finish issues you attribute to the V can be found, arguably to a greater extent, in the ZR1, which is easily on par price-wise with the M5.

I just really see the V and the M5 in an entirely different light I guess.

M5eater
10-05-12, 06:06 PM
My coupe's passenger door does have a V sill plate, but that aside, I'm not arguing that there might be a bit more glitz in a car that costs $30k more - I'm saying that you can't call a $100k car "elite" and a $70k car "every day". $70k is still a lot of money to most people and places the V well out of "every day" status was my only point.
semantics my friend.. In the super sedan world, 63K(because that's what a base CTS-V costs) is entry level. We're talking about M5 performance here for $4k more than a C63AMG.

larry arizona
10-05-12, 07:21 PM
little brother should never kick big brothers ass UNLESS its the V kicking M and C's ass........:want:

JFJr
10-05-12, 08:34 PM
That's right, what the "V" needs is fake engine noise and then it will be "world class" and we can really compare the 2. What's next, virtual racing?

Jud

hulksdaddy
10-05-12, 10:03 PM
Bottom line in my case, the V Coupe is the only car that got me out of my Z06. Its looks are completely badass. There is no BMW or Mercedes that tempt me. All too vanilla.

thebigjimsho
10-08-12, 12:54 AM
Performance does not equal soul. For example, I miss the raw, visceral feel of my '04. My '09 is amazing but I still miss that older V...

quikag
10-08-12, 09:57 AM
I could easily buy an F10 M5 and almost put my name on the list at a local BMW dealer until I decided I am going to go with a tried and true platform with a bulletproof LSA engine and 6L90E transmission and save $30k on top of it. Even if you can afford more expensive things doesn't mean it's always smart to buy them. That is how people get in way over their head if their financial situation changes for the worst. Also, the fake engine noise and now the oil pump issue reinforces my belief that I made the right decision.

Plus, having an LS9 ZR1 Vette for track/weekend fun and then a CTS-V LSA as it's baby brother/daily driver just seemed right to me. I debadged it and it looks like grandma's white Caddy until I nail the happy pedal, the 6L90E downshifts instantly, and the airaid intake starts whining like a little girl way past her bedtime. :D

Trionalaw
10-08-12, 11:44 AM
I could easily buy an F10 M5 and almost put my name on the list at a local BMW dealer until I decided I am going to go with a tried and true platform with a bulletproof LSA engine and 6L90E transmission and save $30k on top of it. Even if you can afford more expensive things doesn't mean it's always smart to buy them. That is how people get in way over their head if their financial situation changes for the worst. Also, the fake engine noise and now the oil pump issue reinforces my belief that I made the right decision.

Plus, having an LS9 ZR1 Vette for track/weekend fun and then a CTS-V LSA as it's baby brother/daily driver just seemed right to me. I debadged it and it looks like grandma's white Caddy until I nail the happy pedal, the 6L90E downshifts instantly, and the airaid intake starts whining like a little girl way past her bedtime. :D

Could I be you for a year or so?

Regards,

Jim

visualguy
10-09-12, 12:13 AM
the more I drive the V, the more I realize that 506whp sounds great in theory, but I acutally had more fun in my 280AWHP S4. You should drive the car that's the most fun, not necessarly the one that's 2/10ths faster.


Audi S4/S5 cars are indeed fun - amazing grip on curvy roads and plenty of power. I actually also prefer them to the CTS-V and M5, at least on public roads. The Audis are lighter, smaller, and more nimble. I don't know what to do with the extra power of the CTS-V and M5 on US public roads - it's wasted.

maxnix
10-09-12, 03:53 PM
Where's the M5's sinister evil twin?

Oh, that's right, it's down the street at the Cadillac dealer. It's called the CTS-V."
Actually it is in the rear view mirror, as the article stated. The main difference is the CTS-V occupants are screaming like mad while the BMW M5 occupants aren't even aware they are traveling quite quickly.

You pays your money and takes your choice. Now, about those weak Caddy horses....and the frequent stops to fillup again. :crying2:

M5eater
10-09-12, 04:17 PM
Actually it is in the rear view mirror, as the article stated. The main difference is the CTS-V occupants are screaming like mad while the BMW M5 occupants aren't even aware they are traveling quite quickly.

You pays your money and takes your choice. Now, about those weak Caddy horses....and the frequent stops to fillup again. :crying2:

You've missed the intent of the article.

That's their problem. You've no idea you're going quickly.

previous M models soothed your brow when you wanted to cruse around, and then bashed a bottle over your head when you wanted to play.

The F10 does nothing of the latter. It's brow soothing all the time. That's booring my friend. If you want a luxury barge that goes fast, mercedes makes a quick S class I hear.

Bottom line, this car is too much luxury barge, not enough sports car.