I posted this on another forum and I'd like to hear the thoughts of the caddy faithful:
A change in perception is what the Cadillac brand wants and needs... however, based on the car presented to Car and Driver for their March 2004 comparison test of the CTS-V against the M3 and M5... GM drops the ball once again. How the heck does someone let this happen? The car had a flat tire, a supposed faulty oil temp sensor (which some how manged to burn through a full quart of mobile 1 synthetic after only 2 laps on the track, severe axle hop, and a shifter described as too stiff. Gentlemen, I want this car and I will buy this car, but GM should be ashamed of themselves. Public perception is what builds a brand. The miserable dealership experience and articles like this one will do nothing to build this brand. Heads should roll at Cadillac because of this. What were the Cadillac guys doing instead of going over this car with a fine tooth comb? What the hell could have possibly been more important than either fixing or changing the oil sensor? Inspite of having puny looking 245 width tires, how does this car have a rear suspension set-up that the magazine predicts will destroy differentials? Didn't anyone at Cadillac think it was important enough to make sure the car didn't have GLARING FLAWS?!?!? The testers liked the car inspite of it's problems, but left the reader with the following, as I will you: The objective test results suggest that Cadillac didn't hit it's development targets quite as squarely as hoped.

First, its pre production car, second, Goodyear made the tires and i'm sure the sensors worked (runflats). Love how a magazine guy can determine that it will eat up rear ends and the guys who are a million times smarter than them can't. C'mon...a stiff shifter? Its a ZO6 transmission, the shifter should be as loose as it. Sounds to me like its damage control for the M3 and M5. Geez, how much did you hear from Mags when the M3 motors were going bad? How they did something like, detune the engines and lower the redline? You didn't hear anything until M3 owners made a big stink of it on the internet. GM will not let V's go out the door with an oil sensor problem. I'm sure they don't want to replace LS6's that are under warranty for 4 years 50k standard

Forgot, what exactly are the "glaring flaws? Do you think all V's are going to come with a bad oil sensor, a flat tire, a stiff shifter and I'll take the magazines word that the rear will fail.:confused:

I'm not going to discuss each point, because my main point here has been lost. This f***in car should never have been given to this magazine with out being gone over not once, not twice, but 10 times. Bob Lutz promised us that things like this would not happen anymore. These new cars are supposed to be statements. Cadillac's return to: The Standard of the World. People should lose their jobs over things like this. Cadillac has an image problem. Lack luster dealerships and articles like this do not help. GM knows that Cadillac needs sales. Increased sales mean more money for R&D which yields more exciting models for us drive. I want this car. I have wanted this car since last Aprils New York Autoshow and it pisses me off to see articles like this because this car is better than this. Anyone who has driven one can attest to that. Cadillac needs to interest young car crazy guys like me, who read 4 car magazines a month, to go out and drive this car. If I was a guy with no GM loyalties, who was considering an M series, this article would totally turn me off. The problems with this car could have been fixed before the magazine got it's hands on it. This was a production car, not pre-production. Ken Morris, a Cadillac engineer, explained that all the first cars off the line had the oil sensor problem. WELL THEN CHANGE IT, KEN!! Someone needed to beat on this car for a few hours in the days before handing it over. Change the friggin tire, adjust the shift linkage (as GNSCOTT can attest, the 6 speeds in our C5's do not flow like a hot knife through butter), change the oil sensor to something that won't have the car running at over 300F degrees, and I'll let the axle tramp slide... although I can't see how 400HP and skinny tires don't equal melted tires instead of a bad Mustang burnout. GM needs to be better because Cadillac has been mediocre for a long time. Instead of making excuses for people who didn't care enough to do their jobs properly we, as Caddy loyalists, need to complain in these posts in hopes that someone is paying attention... so that the next time a car magazine gets one of these cars for a test it's as good as it can be, not 4/5's. Would any of us... Would anyone who wants to see this brand succeed have been so careless with the car we presented if it was under our control? NO... and that is my point. Cadillac had an opportunity to make a statement and let a great car kick some ass, but instead they are left to follow instead of lead.

IRSes are more susceptible to wheel hop than most (non-leaf-spring) stick-axle setups. Most do it if the conditions are right - the M5 does, the 'Vette does, the Mustang Cobra does.

Not having a C/D subscription I haven't read the story, but I can't imagine why the GM press minders wouldn't have had the tire changed in five minutes if they'd been notified. The temp sensor is a bigger issue - is this just a gauge sender or is this a thermostat in the oil cooler?

If we're talking preproduction hardware, it may just be that C/D got their hands on the car after it'd been beaten to death by everyone else.

From what I can find it appears that there is no oil cooler designed into the LS6 ... at least not when it's in the corvette Z06. GM abandoned oil coolers in corvettes in 92 with the advent of synthetic oil. The 2005 C6 Z51 corvette will have one, but the standard C6 will not. Regarding the sensor the article states that there is a "software calibration challenge" that must keep the t-stat from tripping the fan. The oil-temp monitor is new in this car (different than the vette) and the engineers, apparently, haven't worked everything out as of yet.

Where is this article? The only one I can find on their web site praises the hell out of the car.

CaddyGeek,you ABSOLUTELY nailed it! NO EXCUSES, Cadillac! You got to the goal line and fumbled the ball. No amount of sympathetic rationale of well meaning Caddy Forum regulars can make this smell any better. The sandbox Cadillac has chosen to play in is that of enthusiasts who seek the holy grail of world class performance sedans. "Standard of The World"? Not yet.
ANYONE listening at Cadillac? Mark, please do not blow this off. You have to know going in that C & D is not predisposed to like anything from Detroit from the get-go. They, unfortunately have a lot to do with forming public opinion
of performance cars. The big moment comes center stage, front and center with kleig lights blazing and there you stand in full tux with your fly open. I happen to love my CTS 1SC but in the larger picture of Cadillac's reputation it really doesn't matter. Better learn how to play with the big dogs. QUICK!

First, its pre production car, second, Goodyear made the tires and i'm sure the sensors worked (runflats). Love how a magazine guy can determine that it will eat up rear ends and the guys who are a million times smarter than them can't. C'mon...a stiff shifter? Its a ZO6 transmission, the shifter should be as loose as it. Sounds to me like its damage control for the M3 and M5. Geez, how much did you hear from Mags when the M3 motors were going bad? How they did something like, detune the engines and lower the redline? You didn't hear anything until M3 owners made a big stink of it on the internet. GM will not let V's go out the door with an oil sensor problem. I'm sure they don't want to replace LS6's that are under warranty for 4 years 50k standard

Forgot, what exactly are the "glaring flaws? Do you think all V's are going to come with a bad oil sensor, a flat tire, a stiff shifter and I'll take the magazines word that the rear will fail.:confused:

Interesting to note the predisposition of the naysayers to form alliances without having read the article for themselves.

<I hear the beating of the Holy BMW drum in the background calling the faithful to join the forming frenzy>

The M3 engine self destruct problem was never mentioned in any of the rags that currently beat up anything Detroit. Still the M3 problem is little known among the BMW apologists I see frequenting this forum. When I mentioned the M3 problem in more than one thread an apologist immediately pointed out how unfair this was.
http://yoy.com/auto/m3_failintro.shtml

This same group repeatedly points out Detroit mistakes from the past decade over and over again. Draw your own conclusions but until I actually see the C&D article its difficult to form an objective opinion.

What, a BMW NEVER broke down before!? Don't give me that crap! Many cars that are tested for magazine articles are "rung-out" and abused before they go to another magazine to abused even more. I wonder if this is one of those cars? I can give you details and model years of BMW's that were recalled in 1991 for potential exploding gas tanks! I'm not making excuses, every car that is in it's first year can have unforeseen bugs in it, and anyone who is a car enthuisiast knows this. I wonder how long before the new Acura TL is recalled for defects. Have you seen the list of recalls for the Ford Focus, despite the fact that this car was out in Europe 2 years before the NA introduction, and was supposed to be bug free!

reading that article it's hard not to think it's propoganda to save face for the M3 and M5. a car from detroit finally stepped up to the plate and can hang (and most likely) beat it's competitors so I'm not surprised that people are salty. An M3 roasting Cadillac? lord forbid... :cookoo:

Also, if one of the Beamers broke down or somehow failed during the test, it would probably go unnoticed because the spotlight is on the V right now. I want to know where the CTS owners are? If you don't think these cars are reliable, just explore this section of the Forum and see if they aren't! :yup: Then go to a BMW Forum to see if they are so "superior" for reliability. This is one "regular" who is tired of short timers coming here just to bash our favorite rides! Go buy a Beamer, we're not stopping you. And when you do race a V, make sure your hairpiece is snapped in good! Sounds like fear talking so far. :p

C L U T C H !

Car and Driver still gave the CTS-V good overall remarks. Either way I still want one no matter what they say. My good friend has a 02 M3 and he even admits the CTS-V is as good of a car if not better than his M3. BTW ,didnt the CTS come in second in overall quality next to the Lexus ES300?

So where were the problems when they tested it the first time?? All of a sudden they find what you call "glaring flaws". C'mon, complaining about a flat tire has to be the stupidest thing put in print by the rag. THEY FREAKIN COMPLAINED ABOUT A DAMN FLAT TIRE! They were just looking for stuff to bitch about, going so far as to predict that the rears will fail?????


BOTTOM LINE IS IT GETS AROUND THE TRACK QUICKER THAN AN M3 OR M5, and i'll bet that it gets around quicker with the rear intact, with the oil sensor working, and well if you get a flat tire going around, at least you have run flats on there. Nothing but petty BS from a rag.

For whatever it's worth, I read the article.... thoroughly! I stand by my comments. I am a HUGE GM and, particularly a Cadillac supporter but I am getting TIRED of auto writers having to make excuses for GM on why the test results may have been skewed. It is not clear that the M5 would have trounced the "V" if they hadn't been reluctant to push it due to the gage readouts. It is just FRUSTATING that there is always SOMETHING, clearly the fault of GM, that diminishes the luster of a test car. It is the attention to detail that makes the difference between companies who "get it" and those who dont.

Who the hell said that anyone writting in this thread wanted an M series instead of a CTS-V? Regular or "short-timer," it should be apparent that the guys, at cadillac, who prep'd this car hurt it's performance in this test and should be taken to task for it... Bashing me for being furious because some idiot didn't do his job is stupid. Hundreds of thousands of people are now reading about what this car didn't do well, instead of by how much it kicked ass. Problems with the BMWs... so what? Who cares? BMW owns the friggin market for performance sedans (with Audi and AMG right on their ass)... they are are the standard, the target, the cars that people spend $50,000 on instead of Cadillacs. If our boys in Detroit want to perpetuate this brand then they need the car magazines. Cadillac needs to thump the euro-sedans in these tests. They need High School kids to hang pictures of this car on their walls... to someday aspire to drop the clutch and roast the tires in a CTS-V. This article hurt the brand. The car could have been trouble free and we'd all be jumping up and down showing our friends how the Caddy sucked the doors off the M cars and ate their lunch. None of that happened. Instead we are all doing damage control for a great car. Bob Lutz, you really let me down... make the STS-V 500hp instead of 400hp, over shoot the mark, prepare for the V-10 M5 and leave it sucking on force fed Detroit exhaust. Make Cadillac the ENVY of the world.

I can appreciate hyperbole, but the fact of the matter is that the CTS-V is not going to suck the doors off an M5, nor will the M5 apply such suction to the CTS-V. We're talking about two very good and very evenly matched cars each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Which, relative to where GM's been for the past thirty years, is a friggin' miracle.

Oh, and the Cadillac happens to be $20K+ less, is in production now (there might be a couple new '03 M5s left around, otherwise they're all used cars) and the bits that GM did better either cost serious money to retrofit to the BMW (e.g. $4500 for brakes comparable to the CTS-V) or can't realistically be done at all (the multi-mode switchable stability control.)

As for GM's preparation of the press car and their care and feeding of the C/D staff: yeah, they appear to have put the kickoff out of bounds at the 40. The CTS-V's been all over the press, Brit mags, German mags, so it's entirely possible they just flat ran out of people, or out of cars, to handle it. Still, it is a pretty solid face-plant into the bowl of egg batter.

Didn't the BMW test driver beat an M5's best time his FIRST time out with the CTSV? I would settle for as fast as an 03 though.:coolgleam

That story was a brief, unattributed comment in a news-and-rumors column in one of the British auto magazines. No further details or confirmation have ever come out.

Good thoughts. I agree that the CTS-V will never give the Hoover to an M5, but I am hoping that Lutz makes sure that the STS-V does. With supposed twin turbos forcing air into a 350 small block or, hopefully, a 363 cubic inch LS2 motor from a C6 there are possibilities. That's what I was referring to when hoping for a 500hp Cadillac to compete with the coming M5s V-10. The MB E55 AMG is this type of car, loud with enough torque to pull a house down. There is a market for a $70K - $80K Cadillac performance sedan if it has the statistical numbers to back up the price tag. Lutz has stated that Cadillac will never make a car that sells for less than the CTS. I assume this to mean that a smaller car will never be made as well... leaving Cadillac with the CTS to compete for sales with the 3 series and the STS to compete with the 5 series (even though the CTS is about the size of a 5 series itself).

Turbos on the sts-v? Say it isn't so. I always looked up to companies for making honest engines that don't have to be force fed. In the European camp, Mercedes and Audi just took the cheap route and slapped turbos on their engines to generate the power. Sure, an E55 looks great with all that power but can you imagine if BMW slapped twin turbos on their existing 5.0liter 400hp 11-1 compression 7000rpm M5 engine! Game over man.

I say GM should keep building naturally aspirated engines and if takes more displacement or rpm's to keep pace, so be it. NA engines simply sound better, have flatter torque curves, and rev faster. I think the turbo & supercharger are better for perking up sales in the last couple years of a slumping car models life. It's a band-aid more than an engineering marvel - a quick fix. Just like in the case of the M5 vs. the others, if the STS-V could be made to run without the handicap of a turbo, it will gain more respect for itself in the end. (And then tuners around the world would be able to say "if we add a turbo here, we could charge $15k for the mod and make 600hp!)

Car and Driver still gave the CTS-V good overall remarks. Either way I still want one no matter what they say. My good friend has a 02 M3 and he even admits the CTS-V is as good of a car if not better than his M3. BTW ,didnt the CTS come in second in overall quality next to the Lexus ES300?

I second this notion. I wouldn't let something like this stop me from buying a new V. I suppose if Cadillac wants to save face, they can imediately blame the parts supplier. There are several parts for GM cars now that are no longer produced "in-house." I kinda admire that Cadillac had the guts to let those reporters or whoever test what was probably a "randomly" picked car from the assembly line. Why should the cars be screened or "gone over with a fine tooth comb?" This is how the company learns about flaws or inferior GM approved parts. It is just unfortunate that this happened when it was the subject of an article, but things happen. I wonder if the Beamer was "carefully selected?"
I certainly do not believe this deprives the brand of overall quality, and I too would have no problem buying one!

Who the hell said that anyone writting in this thread wanted an M series instead of a CTS-V? Regular or "short-timer," it should be apparent that the guys, at cadillac, who prep'd this car hurt it's performance in this test and should be taken to task for it... Bashing me for being furious because some idiot didn't do his job is stupid. Hundreds of thousands of people are now reading about what this car didn't do well, instead of by how much it kicked ass. Problems with the BMWs... so what? Who cares? BMW owns the friggin market for performance sedans (with Audi and AMG right on their ass)... they are are the standard, the target, the cars that people spend $50,000 on instead of Cadillacs. If our boys in Detroit want to perpetuate this brand then they need the car magazines. Cadillac needs to thump the euro-sedans in these tests. They need High School kids to hang pictures of this car on their walls... to someday aspire to drop the clutch and roast the tires in a CTS-V. This article hurt the brand. The car could have been trouble free and we'd all be jumping up and down showing our friends how the Caddy sucked the doors off the M cars and ate their lunch. None of that happened. Instead we are all doing damage control for a great car. Bob Lutz, you really let me down... make the STS-V 500hp instead of 400hp, over shoot the mark, prepare for the V-10 M5 and leave it sucking on force fed Detroit exhaust. Make Cadillac the ENVY of the world.

The attitude of a minor few of the Cadillac faithful on this board towards competitive spirit and accountability by Cadillac is a little over the top and actually I really pretty much agree with you. More power to CandD for nailing not only Caddy, but every vehicle manufacturer, both foreign and domestic who even thinks of putting anything out there over 25 grand without checking and rechecking every single aspect of the vehicle. I have to admit however, that Cadillac deserves some credit for making the strides it has in the past few years and many continue to give Cadillac undue grief over its past mistakes. This was an early production vehicle and early production vehicles just inherently have some minor glitches, especially as electronically controlled as cars are these days. I will guarantee 99 percent of failures on first year cars are almost ALWAYS sensors, relays or PCBs of some sort.

Give Caddy some time to get it all figured out and this will be one hell of a car that no one will have to make any apoligies for. Remember, it has to be somewhat practical too, a 500HP CTS-V might have been a little extreme for the first go-round, the BMW "M" faithful will have no problem plopping down 90k for a V10 M5 because that car already has a cult following in M3 and M5 form. Once the V generates its sting GM will HOPEFULLY continue to develop this and other vehicles in its lineup to kill the rest and be the best.

Ian.

I can guarantee all, that before I modify my CTS-V, come hell or high water, at my own hands, will produce the same numbers that the GM engineers intended for the car. I will not stand for the obejtive test of c&d. I will produce numbers with a production car. I have a Bimmer. It's a great car. But GM and Caddy are heading in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day. When Cadillac is finished cleaning everyone's clocks at Sebring, then we judge. They will provide this list with the results we ALL have been longing for. I will praise every GM engineer I can get an email address for. This is only the beginning. They(GM and Cadillac) have only began to fight. And we all agree it's about DAMN time. :)

Jeff

Loved the article.:histeric:

I can guarantee all, that before I modify my CTS-V, come hell or high water, at my own hands, will produce the same numbers that the GM engineers intended for the car. I will not stand for the obejtive test of c&d. I will produce numbers with a production car. I have a Bimmer. It's a great car. But GM and Caddy are heading in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day. When Cadillac is finished cleaning everyone's clocks at Sebring, then we judge. They will provide this list with the results we ALL have been longing for. I will praise every GM engineer I can get an email address for. This is only the beginning. They(GM and Cadillac) have only began to fight. And we all agree it's about DAMN time. :)

Jeff

Damn RIGHT! :yup:

Finally got C&D March and the CTSV article was pretty good. Surprised by the ineptness of C&D drivers to properly launch high torque IRS setups and achieve advertised 0-60 times.

The 03 Mustang Cobra has similar weight and power to the CTSV with IRS and hits the CTSV advertised 4.7 0-60 mark. I have read numerous M3 drivers cautioning other M3 owners not to challenge the Cobra in the straights.
http://forums.thecarfanatics.com/index.php?showtopic=970

Also notable is the M3 now uses a cast iron block.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0211_3gt/index5.html

Overall the review was favorable.

I'd bet the Cobra still has an advantage over the CTS-V in area under the torque curve, and those blower 4.6s are somewhat underrated in HP.

0-60 doesn't measure power, or even torque, it measures starting-line grip and first gear ratio. 0-150 is the real metric. Quarter-mile is somewhere in between.

I can't imagine any way an M3 will stay near a Cobra (that is, the '03 blower kind) in a straight line.

I've been waiting for a car like the CTS-V to come out for a very long time. I was in the market for an M-3 for a while, but couldn't deal with the label that car has attatched to it... ( 20 something wanna-be stock broker, lives with mommy and daddy, owns way too many hair care products, has year round tan ). I'm the current owner of black 95 Fleetwood rat-rod project car that gets more stares than any M-5. More my style but handles like Shamu on a moving dolly. So here comes the CTS-V, I think my prayers are answered, but GM drops the ball on the five yard line. How do you take a very pedestrain CTS, drop in one of the best motors and transmissions available to GM and basically ignore the rest of the car? What happened to the fender flares, the lowered stance, the Vette spec rims, the monster rotors, etc... When I first saw pics of the race version set up for the Rolex 24 I had a stupid grin on all day. Then to top it off they send it out on it's debut fight with a leaky tire and bad oil sensor? Where did Ken Morris think he was sending this car? Another lame photo shoot? Lets face it, the Cadillac name has been associated with old men in hats smoking stogies for a long time now. If GM is serious about getting some street cred with their new line they need to get it together. I agree that someone should get a big fat demotion for letting this thing happen. Too bad John Lingenfelter isn't around anymore, I'm sure he would have had some interesting ideas for the V.

So here comes the CTS-V, I think my prayers are answered, but GM drops the ball on the five yard line. How do you take a very pedestrain CTS, drop in one of the best motors and transmissions available to GM and basically ignore the rest of the car? What happened to the fender flares, the lowered stance, the Vette spec rims, the monster rotors, etc...

It's an adult car, and (tacky Escalade aside) that's the image GM needs to cultivate for Cadillac.

I hardly think they've ignored the rest of the car. Okay, some might argue that it could use a little more tire, and they've chickened out on the paint choices.

But the chassis is probably the best in its class, and it's got all the nice little details like a limited-slip diff (which Mercedes, Jaguar, etc. left out) and selectable stability-control modes (which even BMW hasn't got and the only ones who try anything close are Porsche) that mean more when you're working the car down the backroads or around Laguna Seca than any tacked-on bodywork.

It is already a fair bit lower than a standard CTS.

'Vette-spec rims? Oh, you want them to put smaller wheels on the car? Wait a minute, Corvette front wheels won't fit over the CTS-V's brakes anyway even if they were the right offset and bolt pattern.

Monster rotors? What do you consider the 14-inchers the car has on it? Those brakes cost a LOT more (2.5x?) than the brakes on any other GM passenger car.

Some people consider the Ford Taurus an "adult" car too. Cadi is on the right track, but for them to play in AMG and M territory they need to bring alot to the table. Granted the car comes with 14in. rotors but how do you figure Vette tires are smaller? 245/45-18 to a 285/35-19? The point I was trying to make had little to do with bolt patterns and alot to do with Cadillac building a world class touring car. Don't get me wrong, I love the car, I was just hoping for a little more.

Lets see Car and Driver did this comparison right? The same ones that called the GTO a bloated pig that was on an old chassis and had a crappy interior?
Funny they did not want to drive the car hard for some reason so the M cars got the better times.

As said before it was a preproduction model and if the magazine knows this then that is something that they should consider when writing an article. It pisses me off when people leave Cadillac no room for anything and BMW as said before has cars with exploding engines and a host of electrical problems and recall never make the from page news. STILL they make the top ten lists....what are they judging the cars on!

We are not race car drivers we need to know how the car will drive everyday as well as performance. We also need to know will it be in the shop 5 times a year. BMW would not be so revered if the magazines would be honest.

My point is calm down about it because that engine and tranny are already proven products as well as the CTS. So how can the car be as bad as they are trying to paint it.

Lets see Car and Driver did this comparison right? The same ones that called the GTO a bloated pig that was on an old chassis and had a crappy interior?

Did you read the same GTO review I did? The review I read said that it was an excellent value, with a great powertrain, a very good interior that's missing a couple features (e.g. nav system) and a good-though-not-perfect chassis wrapped in a somewhat anonymous body. All of which I regard as eminently fair and pretty much accurate.


We are not race car drivers we need to know how the car will drive everyday as well as performance. We also need to know will it be in the shop 5 times a year. BMW would not be so revered if the magazines would be honest.


Yes they would. They've got a long track record of doing a very good job at building solid, strong-performing product.

I rarely read a magazine review of a BMW that doesn't criticize their crappy stereos and other electronics, or whinge about how fat and over-gadgeted they've gotten, and some models are definitely better than others.

But in the end they've done it better for longer than anyone else and in most respects they're still near if not at the top.

As for service, five times a year isn't too far off the mark for a daily-driver. That's a couple oil changes, one or two normal-maintenance items like tires or brake pads that don't conveniently fall in with the oil-change schedule, and maybe one otherwise-unplanned service visit per year.


My point is calm down about it

100% agreement there.

Did you read the same GTO review I did? The review I read said that it was an excellent value, with a great powertrain, a very good interior that's missing a couple features (e.g. nav system) and a good-though-not-perfect chassis wrapped in a somewhat anonymous body. All of which I regard as eminently fair and pretty much accurate.



Yes they would. They've got a long track record of doing a very good job at building solid, strong-performing product.

I rarely read a magazine review of a BMW that doesn't criticize their crappy stereos and other electronics, or whinge about how fat and over-gadgeted they've gotten, and some models are definitely better than others.

But in the end they've done it better for longer than anyone else and in most respects they're still near if not at the top.

As for service, five times a year isn't too far off the mark for a daily-driver. That's a couple oil changes, one or two normal-maintenance items like tires or brake pads that don't conveniently fall in with the oil-change schedule, and maybe one otherwise-unplanned service visit per year.



100% agreement there.



First of all I was speaking of Car and Driver television! Which brings to light my other point of how the write one thing and then stated something totally different on TV. If you did not see it then search the internet. A lot of people did see it and were very sick with them. I could care less about them circling a test track when I will have to be driving the car in everyday conditions.

Most BMW articles I read do not have many issues with the car and certainly not real world experience about the car. Meaning the many electrical issues people have with the cars that bring them back to the service bay. Reread what I posted! If they really evaluated the cars then they would not name a car to a top ten list that is a problematic car!

I'd bet the Cobra still has an advantage over the CTS-V in area under the torque curve, and those blower 4.6s are somewhat underrated in HP.

0-60 doesn't measure power, or even torque, it measures starting-line grip and first gear ratio. 0-150 is the real metric. Quarter-mile is somewhere in between.

I assume you mean all other things being equal.

I can't imagine any way an M3 will stay near a Cobra (that is, the '03 blower kind) in a straight line.

After the Cobra lawsuit surrounding the 99 model Ford has underated Cobra output.

I was really surprised the Germans took a step backward in technology to throw a cast iron block in the new M3. Not a very technical approach to solve the problem. Even Fords new Cammer engine is aluminum with ribbed cylinder sleeves to compensate for the additional stress. The 03 Cobra went with a cast iron block due to budget constraints.

I will take the push rods with aluminum blocks over DOHC on top of cast iron. The Aluminum/Cast iron combo belongs on a Caphlon skillet.

Honestly, who didn't see this coming? They admit it themselves that the car wasn't pushed to it's limits like the other two.

"To limit oil-temp-readout hysterics, we tried short-shifting the Caddy at 5500 rpm, well below the 6000 rpm horsepower peak, figuring the 5.7's edge in torque would cover for not using all the revs."

But read on and the results aren't as bad as you would think:
Lap times:

"So even though we weren't able to employ nearly as much throttle as we would have liked, and nearly as often, the Cadillac's best lap - 1:25.355 (74.7mph) - edged the M5's by 0.138. And there's no doubt in the mind of the designated lapper that there was another second or so that we were unable to exploit. Perhaps even more."
The M3 posted a best of 1:24.471 (75.4mph). Sounds like the CTS-V should have come out on top here.

Other interesting comments of note:

"...the CTS-V had a distinctly better pedal feel than the M5."
Braking numbers: M3-161ft. M5-164ft. CTS-V-165ft.

"In terms of general comfort and and self-indulgence, the CTS-V is the clear winner. It's roomier than the M5, particularly in the rear, the electroluminescent instruments look good and scan better, the interior styling looks more contemporary than the aging BMW layouts, and the Caddy's audio system makes the BMW units sound very ordinary indeed."

"We were also a bit mystified by the skidpad results. The Caddy's 245/45ZR-18 tires provided a bit less rear footprint than either of the BMW's, although it put up the best skidpad number, 0.90g [also stated is that the leaking tire may have diluted this result, so it could be even higher!]."

Surprisingly, other than the first section of the article where they complain about the problems their pre-production car had, it says a lot in the CTS-V's favor. Whoever believes that this was a poor article isn't reading what is actually being said. C&D had a seriously flawed car and it still managed to turn times on par with the best BMW has to offer. Imagine how well a properly driven full production model will do.

Standard Of The World.

I was really surprised the Germans took a step backward in technology to throw a cast iron block in the new M3. Not a very technical approach to solve the problem. Even Fords new Cammer engine is aluminum with ribbed cylinder sleeves to compensate for the additional stress. The 03 Cobra went with a cast iron block due to budget constraints.

No, the '03 Cobra went with a cast-iron block because they couldn't make the aluminum block hold together at the kinds of output they were making.

The reason was exactly the same reason BMW uses an iron block in the M3 - it's more rigid.

The Ford mod-motor does not have a particularly strong bottom-end (it was designed to be narrow front-to-back for transverse FWD applications, and has fairly narrow bearing journals as a result.)

The M3 engine's problem is that an inline six is long and narrow and an aluminum block in that configuration needs a lot of metal to be rigid enough for serious high-HP use.

Ford also went with Manley H-beam rods in the Cobra, after considerable experience with tweaked Lightnings leaving bits of broken engine on the ground.

No, the '03 Cobra went with a cast-iron block because they couldn't make the aluminum block hold together at the kinds of output they were making.

The reason was exactly the same reason BMW uses an iron block in the M3 - it's more rigid.

The Ford mod-motor does not have a particularly strong bottom-end (it was designed to be narrow front-to-back for transverse FWD applications, and has fairly narrow bearing journals as a result.)

The M3 engine's problem is that an inline six is long and narrow and an aluminum block in that configuration needs a lot of metal to be rigid enough for serious high-HP use.

Ford also went with Manley H-beam rods in the Cobra, after considerable experience with tweaked Lightnings leaving bits of broken engine on the ground.

I read that explaination from Ford but the cast iron setup is also cheaper to produce and you can't convince me that wasn't a factor. The 03 Cobra with the gas guzzler tax thrown in is already at 34K.

The Cammer engine exceeds the output of the existing 4.6L and is all aluminum so this amount of power from all aluminum powerplant is an engineering possibility.
http://www.mustangweekly.com/2003/November/news/n11-6-3rd.asp

But this is way off topic, give me an all aluminum powerplant with pushrods any day over cast iron with DOHC. The tuning potential for the LS6 can't be overstated and the I6 M variants are maxed from the factory.

Given 50,000 to spend on a car and knowing my experience with my current CTS, I will definately buy the CTSV over the M3.

A few off the shelf after market parts will more than make up for those few tenths of a second you give up off the showroom floor. The M driver has relatively few options to boost power without severly compromising reliability.

You do realize you've just admitted to the forum that you're extremely insecure and base your car choices on what others think don't you? Talk about a "mama's boy". :helpless:



[QUOTE=Spy Hunter]I was in the market for an M-3 for a while, but couldn't deal with the label that car has attatched to it... ( 20 something wanna-be stock broker, lives with mommy and daddy, owns way too many hair care products, has year round tan ). I'm the current owner of black 95 Fleetwood rat-rod project car that gets more stares than any M-5.

Hmmm...exploding engines. You must be talking about the 120 or so engines that were built from late '01 to early 2002. Yep, less than 1% of all M3's had a few bad engines, but BMW did the right thing by replacing them all for free. Also tacked on a 6 year/100,000 mile warranty as well. Never had a problem with miy M3, but my neighbor down the street his in the process of lemon-lawing his '03 Z06. It also rattles and rolls like a 1972 Camaro. Yep, excellent quality those GM products.:rolleyes:



Lets see Car and Driver did this comparison right? The same ones that called the GTO a bloated pig that was on an old chassis and had a crappy interior?
Funny they did not want to drive the car hard for some reason so the M cars got the better times.

As said before it was a preproduction model and if the magazine knows this then that is something that they should consider when writing an article. It pisses me off when people leave Cadillac no room for anything and BMW as said before has cars with exploding engines and a host of electrical problems and recall never make the from page news. STILL they make the top ten lists....what are they judging the cars on!

We are not race car drivers we need to know how the car will drive everyday as well as performance. We also need to know will it be in the shop 5 times a year. BMW would not be so revered if the magazines would be honest.

My point is calm down about it because that engine and tranny are already proven products as well as the CTS. So how can the car be as bad as they are trying to paint it.

Cadillac #2 in initial quality. BMW #8.
http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/automotive/publications/powerreport/200307/images/IQSjuly1.gif
http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/automotive/publications/powerreport/200307/0703_IQSp.htm

Cadillac #7 in reliability. BMW #13
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050b.gif

Hmmm...exploding engines. You must be talking about the 120 or so engines that were built from late '01 to early 2002. Yep, less than 1% of all M3's had a few bad engines, but BMW did the right thing by replacing them all for free. Also tacked on a 6 year/100,000 mile warranty as well.

I would not call over 100 M3 failed engines a few. The owners of those failed M3 engines had a difficult time getting BMW to even acknowledge the problem much less address it.

http://www.voy.com/118069/
http://members.roadfly.org/jason/m3engines.htm
http://yoy.com/auto/m3_failintro.shtml
http://members.roadfly.com/jason/44-0552_IMG.JPG
http://members.roadfly.com/jason/44-0551_IMG.JPG
http://members.roadfly.com/jason/10.jpg

darelld:

those pics sure speak for themselves!! You also brought up a great point about the export industry. This is not the only time I've heard about BMW NA's (North America)'s lack of customer service. One of the defining features of domestic cars these days is quick action, continuous improvement, and keeping the customer happy. Same goes for Sony...good luck dealing with their customer support if your TV or computer is broke. Ah Dell...that's a little better.

I'm curious, how long did it take BMW to acknowledge the engine explosion problem and fix it?

darelld:

those pics sure speak for themselves!! You also brought up a great point about the export industry. This is not the only time I've heard about BMW NA's (North America)'s lack of customer service. One of the defining features of domestic cars these days is quick action, continuous improvement, and keeping the customer happy. Same goes for Sony...good luck dealing with their customer support if your TV or computer is broke. Ah Dell...that's a little better.

I'm curious, how long did it take BMW to acknowledge the engine explosion problem and fix it?

This is one BMW M3 owners account;



11.14.2002:
I heard on Roadfly that BMW NA "re-assigned" Gene Stewart so that he's no longer dealing with owner's engine failure issues. Supposedly they did so because of my conversation with him on November 12. Gene seemed an honest guy who actually cared about the owners. This is a very short-sighted, dirty tactic on the part of BMW NA. Frankly, I didn't think they'd act this way. I feel bad for Gene.
11.7.2002:
I decided to call BMW NA today. I asked the woman to connect me to Gene Stewart and was told he was out until the following Tuesday. I then asked her about the engine failures; she said she knew nothing about them. She then said Gene was the person to talk to there, and that she'd leave him a message to return my call.
11.1.2002:
I picked-up the car from Beverly Hills BMW today after having the driver's side seatbelt retractor replaced. They were unwilling to check the front for the cause of a constant, annoying rattle because of my after-market suspension, even though I told them that I and a professional shop had already gone through it and couldn't find the cause in the suspension. Also, the service advisor there, when asked, said they hadn't had any engine replacements there since the very first ones this winter. That seems unlikely, considering how many cars they sell there.
10.27.2002:
Went to the M3 Generations meet in Orange County, California, today. Great event. Lots of M3's there. Spoke at length with Peter; he and I are considering pursuing a class action vigorously. We're just fed-up with the company not even giving us the courtesy of a phone call or personal letter. We don't want to suffer all the possible troubles of engine failure and the resultant hazard, inconvenience, loss of value, etc. Many other owners seemed supportive.
10.18.2002:
Time has dragged on while I drive the car with the Engine of Damocles. I haven't seen any sign of things improving for BMW M3 owners. Perhaps it's just frustration, perhaps it's timely, but I had to send off another letter into the void that is BMW Customer Service. How long are they going to wait to contact us individually? How long until I can feel confident in my expensive new car? Am I going to be the one who gets hurt if/when my engine fails at just the wrong moment? I'm sick of waiting. It's time to shake things up. This is too important an issue for us to be passive. I'm ready to start organizing owners and to consider turning to the press and/or a lawsuit. Sure, the press has been quiet. They'll run the story, though, if the safety issue is made clear enough. BMW had better do something soon, or we'll all suffer in some way.
9.9.2002:
Here are my thoughts on the situation now. It seems that even early 2002 production cars have some tendency to fail. Some statistically- and logically-talented folks on the Roadfly Forum have theorized that there are at least two failure modalities: an early failure one that plagues cars with the 'red bearings' and another which can affect cars produced before and after the bearing switch. This means to me that, even if they replace my engine tomorrow (not likely), it, too could fail. I want to begin thinking of what remedies are acceptable. First, here are my concerns:
· Safety: I do not believe it is reasonable or prudent to insist owners of cars produced in the high-risk time period drive until they experience engine failure. If the engine goes in the most dramatic fashion (a punctured block, which has happened more than once), it could all too easily result in injury or death.
· Reliability: I demand an extremely reliable car when spending so much money with a major auto manufacturer. Wondering if it'll blow at any given moment detracts greatly from the ownership experience.
· Warranty: If there continues to be such a high likelihood of failure, I don't want to be responsible for engine replacements in the future, even after the standard warranty has expired. I expect to have a car free of defects as the basis of my warranty agreement.
· Resale Value: People are already starting to dump these cars to avoid this engine failure issue. Others are avoiding the model and certainly those cars produced in the high-risk period when buying used M3s. I don't want my investment in the car to be devalued because of a manufacturing problem and BMW's subsequent mishandling of the situation.
Here are some ideas for directions BMW can take with owners. Perhaps they're not all feasible, few are likely, but all would go some way towards winning back my loyalty and preventing legal action.
· Level with us: Give us the exact reason(s) for the failures, some honest statistics, and a BMW gamelan for dealing with this situation.
· Buy back the cars: If BMW would buy back my M3 for what I paid, I'd be out the interest paid to date on my loan. That's alright, as I'd then be free to decide what's next in my garage. Even with things as they are, I'd likely buy a new, hopefully problem-free M3.
· Replace all suspect engines immediately: This or the above buy-back idea are the only ways to ensure public safety. I'm not willing, as I cannot overstate, to continue driving something this dangerous indefinitely.
· Provide greatly extended warranty: Some have suggested a transferable seven-year, 100,000 mile powertrain warranty. This would help to a great degree in overcoming reliability concerns and bolstering resale values.
9.6.2002:
So, I just received BMW North America's Response to my initial letter. Had I received this earlier and had I not received the insulting Form Letter, I may have been somewhat appeased. As things stand, this letter, too, has far too great a focus on proper use and maintenance, which makes me nervous and angry, since we're dealing with an engineering/production/assembly issue here, not operator error. At least this letter makes some reference to engine failures, though it falls far short of really levelling with us. Another glaring problem, in my eyes, is the focus on replacing engines after they fail. I don't want to wait and see if/when the engine implodes. I want it fixed now. I just don't see how they can ask me to drive a $60,000 time bomb. Ugh, more later, I'm sure.
8.30.2002:
Perhaps there is another letter in the works that will arrive, addressed to me personally, addressing my specific concerns, and actually signed by someone at BMW NA. In the absence of such a letter, I currently feel both insulted and vaguely threatened by BMW North America's form letter. The owner's manual details proper operation of the car. I can read; I did read the manual. The BMW dealership should be well aware of which fluids to use in the car. What concerns me is the number of failures in cars that have, to my knowledge, been broken-in and operated properly.

I took maintenance one small step further, changing my engine oil at about 2,500 miles, using the specified BMW 10W-60 oil, of course, in addition to the oil change indicated by my Service Interval Indicator at 9,600 miles. I did so because I don't believe the oil would have been clean enough at the specified interval and because a BMW service tech said it would be well-advised. I still believe this expensive special 10W-60 oil is just another money-making ploy by the manufacturer. Other high-performance cars operate with readily-available synthetic 10W-50 oil without engine failures.

What concerns me most is that the letter seems to focus on operator error. It does not even hint at BMW being aware of a real problem with some engines, nor does it reassure me that BMW will stand behind me should my engine fail. I did not spend well over $50,000 to be chided like a naughty teenager about proper care of my vehicle.

Cadillac #2 in initial quality. BMW #8.
http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/automotive/publications/powerreport/200307/images/IQSjuly1.gif
http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/automotive/publications/powerreport/200307/0703_IQSp.htm

Cadillac #7 in reliability. BMW #13
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050b.gif

I wanted to see those bar graphs again, thanks for posting them. Glad you're back Goth.

Or, conversely on page 5 of the below link, BMW is 3, while GM is number 5.

http://www.jdpower.com/pdf/2003028.pdf


Cadillac #2 in initial quality. BMW #8.
http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/automotive/publications/powerreport/200307/images/IQSjuly1.gif
http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/automotive/publications/powerreport/200307/0703_IQSp.htm

Cadillac #7 in reliability. BMW #13
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050b.gif

Or, conversely on page 5 of the below link, BMW is 3, while GM is number 5.

http://www.jdpower.com/pdf/2003028.pdf

And if you go to page 7 of the same list, out of 9 categories BMW only managed to make 1. GM has 8 vehicles that rank in the top 3 of 9 car categories.

Or, conversely on page 5 of the below link, BMW is 3, while GM is number 5.

http://www.jdpower.com/pdf/2003028.pdf

That's true! Why would the graphs contradict like that? It can be confusing. But GM did get more overall.

That's true! Why would the graphs contradict like that? It can be confusing. But GM did get more overall.

I don't really think its contradictory, GM has a number of divisions that include some low priced models. I am surprised BMW did not do better overall considering their models on average cost much more.

So as a corporation you are averaging reliability of 10K Chevy Cavalier vs 30K BMW 325i, and still GM is not far behind. Go to the GM premium brands like Cadillac and Buick and GM pulls away by a wide margin.

Not a very good showing for BMW at all.

GM is comprised of many car divisions, not all of them competing with the likes of BMW. To compare their whole selection to BMW's one brand is absurd when on the average the Bimmers price for much more than the average GM car. To be fair, compare one car brand to the other. Of course the BMW is going to fare better than a $20k GM car. What is interesting is that compared to a GM division (like Cadillac) that sells on their level, they don't measure up as well.

*EDIT: Or what Darrell said. (He beat me to it) :D

GM is comprised of many car divisions, not all of them competing with the likes of BMW. To compare their whole selection to BMW's one brand is absurd when on the average the Bimmers price for much more than the average GM car. To be fair, compare one car brand to the other. Of course the BMW is going to fare better than a $20k GM car. What is interesting is that compared to a GM division (like Cadillac) that sells on their level, they don't measure up as well.

*EDIT: Or what Darrell said. (He beat me to it) :D

Doesn't hurt to get a second opinion.

Here is what another BMW owner has to say about service;

Hi Guys,

A few of you know me personally or have met me at one of the meets and seen my "Poppa Smurf M3". I just thought I should share this with all of you so that you guys dont get screwed like I did.

Yesterday, I brought the car into Irvine BMW to hopefully get a broken bolt on my camber plate replaced under warranty. Of course, they rejected it because "my car is lowered". So, I told them not to touch my car and just leave it alone, they went ahead and insulated my HK speakers, and replaced a broken seat rail along with the 10W-60 recall and parking brake recall.

I picked up the car and looked at the invoice. It says 4 miles driven. I get in the car and do a little math and see that they took my ride out for 12 miles. 12 miles. For those who live in OC, you know that 12 miles could have taken me to John Wayne Airport and back. I was furious, I talked to the GSM there and a few other service guys and they all shine me with excuses about, oh, they have to drive the car to test what they replaced. Then I pointed out that they didn't replace anything mechanical and it was ridiculous to test for 12 miles. I can see 3-4 miles, but 12, obviously somebody took my car out for a nice ride and you know they drove it like they stole it. They keep telling me to come back tomorrow when the service manager will be here.

I call BMWNA this morning, I tell them what happened and had them on the other line while I conference called the general service manager. At first, he also tried to make excuses that they had to test the car, but then he realized that it was indeed their fault. I basically told him this-

1) The car was in for cosmetic repairs, no mechanicals. Don't tell me you need to drive the car more than 2 miles to change the oil
2) The invoice was intentionally altered to show 4 miles to cover their _asses_ so their documents wouldn't show their fault. I feel this is fradulent
3) All the service guys try to play us "average joes" off with lame excuses so we'll just let it slide
4) AND on top of that, they rejected my warranty request. So, basically, I took my car in there so they could take it for a spin?

So, I have to say that finally the Service Manager admitted his fault and said I have him "held hostage". Then he asked me what I want to basically shut me up from telling all my friends that Irvine BMW sucks and not to go there (well guys, don't ever go there). I was kidding around with him and asked if he would let me drive his Z8 on the lot for 12 miles.. he said "OK". Can you believe that? If I get to drive that Z8, I'd feel bad for the guy who drops 160K on that car cuz I would rip that thing up.

So anyway, long story short. They are trying to make amends. And, since I had BMWNA on the phonecall with me, I mentioned all the engine failures that are happening and asked them, HOW DO I KNOW THAT ITS NOT YOUR SERVICE GUYS THAT ARE SCREWING UP OUR ENGINES WITH THEIR JOYRIDES? Of course, they have no answer.

I know there's nothing they can do to turn back time, but I really think that us, as M3 owners are perhaps getting the shaft for "overrevving, blowing engine, wearing out clutches, etc" probably not due to us. We all LOVE our cars, but its these guys that get to drive the car for 12 miles, rip it up, cause us the grief and money and we get blamed for "overreving".

Be careful next time you get your car serviced. Make sure you got your miles straight. My advice, don't go to IRVINE BMW. Even though they're tried to make amends, its only after I had to raise hell to get a response.

Good luck. BMWNA, I really hope you read this and consider what us "commonfolk" are having to battle against.



Another BMW owners comments you will never see in Car and Driver;


Have you ever seen a large company have _anything_ meaningful to say other than "we're looking into it" on any substantial warranty issue until they not only know what happened, but what they plan to do about the mess?

I suspect (begin wild speculation) BMWAG got at least some failed engines right on the test stand in November, which is why they moved back after only a little more than a month on the red bearings (time to notice the problem and get a change in affect up at Munich). At that time, BMWAG was not sure _why_ the new setup had a couple of failures, but to be safe they went back to the known yellow bearing setup.

It then takes 3 months before cars get into customer hands long enough for motors to begin failing in the field, and even longer for someone to get that info back all the way to the engine people who knew what to look for in the failure (think about it, dealer has to talk to his local tech rep, who send DME off to be read, which might get to the national people's attention, then they pull the engine which failed and maybe have someone open it up, and _then_ perhaps some calls go back to Germany about it and still no one is sure if it's a fluke or not).

Anyhow, so as fails trickle in, and as the customers (hello Jason) do a better job of tracking them than anyone at BMW, finally a trend seems to form, and someone is assigned to look into it seriously. Perhaps after several months the reality is pretty clear - they goofed in making a series of more than 1000 cars (actually probably more like 2500 worldwide). Add in some more delay as people try to place blame on suppliers and cover their butts, and now we're up to pretty recent timeframes.

And even with the facts in hand, and perhaps an estimate from the engine experts on how many more motors will fail (they might have a good opinion now if they know what the failure mode is and the dimensional reason behind it)... Now the executives, marketing folks and most importantly the accountants and lawyers have to weigh in on what to do about it. Ignore it and hope it'll go away? Issue a secret warranty and fix them as they fail? Issue an informal recall where people who know to ask can come get new engines? Recall all cars in certain nations or globally depending on details of laws in certain markets? Offer brand new cars to those affected (yeah, right!). And once that decision is made, a whole pile of other activities have to go in tandem - source of the replaced engines has to be found - do you slow or stop new S54 production for a month to cover it? What do you say to customers and the media? On and on it would go.

And while this process is afoot, you don't say _anything_ about it other than "we're looking into it - make sure to change your oil" since you don't want to sabotage whatever spin you plan to put on it later.

And then on top all that, you have the delay in actual information getting into the hands of the field techs and dealers, who are having to wing it with increasingly well informed customers who confront them with data, hence many wild stories as the low level folks are forced to wave their hands...

Pathetic? Absolutely. Normal? Yep.

It is starting to look more and more likely that some kind of recall could be issued. It will be interesting to see BMWNA eat their "you must be using the wrong oil" memo if that time ever comes.

You do realize you've just admitted to the forum that you're extremely insecure and base your car choices on what others think don't you? Talk about a "mama's boy". :helpless:



[QUOTE=Spy Hunter]I was in the market for an M-3 for a while, but couldn't deal with the label that car has attatched to it... ( 20 something wanna-be stock broker, lives with mommy and daddy, owns way too many hair care products, has year round tan ). I'm the current owner of black 95 Fleetwood rat-rod project car that gets more stares than any M-5.


Momma's boy eh? You sound like one of those kind of guys I'm talking about, Don't be upset nobody is gonna take your hair gel away, cupcake. If you want to sit at a light next to some metrosexual driving a carbon copy of your ride be my guest. As a matter of fact it's my lack of insecurity that affords me the privilege to drive custom rides that most people wouldn't. I suggest you stop being an online tough guy and keep your comments to yourself.

The article was scrutinizing the CTS specifically. With all the griping and moaning it did as good as the M5. The result being that without the sensor & tire issue
it would have surpassed both. They said the tire had a slow leak. That could have been any damn thing. They could have picked up something on the way out there. As far as the sensor, it wasnt a temp issue. The reading was bogus due to calibration problems. The only thing that was a real issue was that the sensor must have been leaking oil on the exhaust, hence the smell. The testors got paranoid and backed off in the test. I would have ran the balls off it if Caddy gave it up for the test. Shit happens. God didnt make all the parts for the car or any car for that matter. So it had a bum sensor. It will all be resolved in the end. If all cars were perfect you wouldnt need a service department. Every dealership I have been in is doing more than changing oil!
I hope to get my V this week. If the sensor is bad or the tire leaks, it will get fixed under warranty.
This car is the biggest baddest bang for the buck and only 3500? Shweeet!

Let me get this straight the CTSV equals the $25,000 more expensive M5 in a test where the testers were short shifting, running low tire pressure and generally takeing it easy Whow. BMW watch out. buy the way my 04 CTS lux sport blows away my neigbors 530i which he just spent $1528. for his 60000 mile service. Guess what his next car is going to be.

Let me get this straight the CTSV equals the $25,000 more expensive M5 in a test where the testers were short shifting, running low tire pressure and generally takeing it easy Whow. BMW watch out. buy the way my 04 CTS lux sport blows away my neigbors 530i which he just spent $1528. for his 60000 mile service. Guess what his next car is going to be. Isn't it ironic that all the talk in here revolves around two cars of which neither is really available? The M5 was discontined last year and the CTS-V really hasn't appeared on the scene yet! But, I guess when we don't have the goods, talk is cheap.

As for the above comment about BMW service at 60k miles costing $1528, remember that it cost him $1528 for the entire 60k miles! The first 50k is FREE. How much is CTS-V servicing going to add up to for 60k miles?

Sorry, I don't use hair gel...mama's boy. As far as my comments, I'll say what I want, when I want, when I feel the need to correct a scared, little mama's boy such as yourself. Now go back and hide behind your computer some more sweetie pie. You're safe there.


Momma's boy eh? You sound like one of those kind of guys I'm talking about, Don't be upset nobody is gonna take your hair gel away, cupcake. If you want to sit at a light next to some metrosexual driving a carbon copy of your ride be my guest. As a matter of fact it's my lack of insecurity that affords me the privilege to drive custom rides that most people wouldn't. I suggest you stop being an online tough guy and keep your comments to yourself.

A little late guys. The M5 it was compared against isn't even being produced anymore. The new one has 500HP and weighs less. This is also the last year of the E46 M3 as well. Caddy's diong a good job jumping in the market, but it's a bit behind the power curve. Doesn't help that GM overstated it's performance capabilites either.


Let me get this straight the CTSV equals the $25,000 more expensive M5 in a test where the testers were short shifting, running low tire pressure and generally takeing it easy Whow. BMW watch out. buy the way my 04 CTS lux sport blows away my neigbors 530i which he just spent $1528. for his 60000 mile service. Guess what his next car is going to be.

What is the point of these posts? If I wanted to, I could fine 10 times the number of negative testimonials toward GM service/quality and post them in return, but it would make for a pointless exchange. I've owned 3 BMW's so far and have been extremely pleased with their service and quality. That's why I keep going back. I've never owned a Caddy so I can't speak of their service/quality specifically, but I've owned plenty of GM's and the service/quality was horrible. The C6 Corvette looks like a viable option to park next to M3, but I'm still a bit gun-shy when it comes to dealing with GM from my negative past experiences.

Wherther it's true or not, this article seem to show to everyone but die-hard Caddy enthusiasts such as yourselves that GM quality sucks (as usual), and that GM has over-estimated the CTS-V's performance. It did well, but all the initial hype about being a "BMW M beater" was just that. Hype.


Doesn't hurt to get a second opinion.

Here is what another BMW owner has to say about service;

Hi Guys, SNIP

What is the point of these posts? If I wanted to, I could fine 10 times the number of negative testimonials toward GM service/quality and post them in return, but it would make for a pointless exchange. I've owned 3 BMW's so far and have been extremely pleased with their service and quality. That's why I keep going back. I've never owned a Caddy so I can't speak of their service/quality specifically, but I've owned plenty of GM's and the service/quality was horrible. The C6 Corvette looks like a viable option to park next to M3, but I'm still a bit gun-shy when it comes to dealing with GM from my negative past experiences.

Wherther it's true or not, this article seem to show to everyone but die-hard Caddy enthusiasts such as yourselves that GM quality sucks (as usual), and that GM has over-estimated the CTS-V's performance. It did well, but all the initial hype about being a "BMW M beater" was just that. Hype.

Sounds like your GM dealerships were crappy to begin with if they treated you bad. That should not have happened. However it doesn't matter what type of car you knock that you don't have, there can be bad dealership experiences from any make, that would turn people away from their products. Sounds like you are a little unsure if you want a Corvette or not, but then, find another dealership for servicing if you buy one. ;) Seperate GM quality FROM the bad servicing experiences you've had. Any first year model can have bugs in it, but that was nothing major with the CTS-V IMO.

Sounds like your GM dealerships were crappy to begin with if they treated you bad. That should not have happened. However it doesn't matter what type of car you knock that you don't have, there can be bad dealership experiences from any make, that would turn people away from their products. Sounds like you are a little unsure if you want a Corvette or not, but then, find another dealership for servicing if you buy one. ;) Seperate GM quality FROM the bad servicing experiences you've had. Any first year model can have bugs in it, but that was nothing major with the CTS-V IMO.

Agreed

The larger question is what is the point of your existence on this board. Most of what you post is negative and then you degrade any discussion to personal attacks. If you don't like Cadillac or GM then why spend countless hours of your time reading and replying to these posts.

Ya, give em hell Darryl. :thumbsup: :D

..

What is the point of these posts? If I wanted to, I could fine 10 times the number of negative testimonials toward GM service/quality and post them in return, but it would make for a pointless exchange. I've owned 3 BMW's so far and have been extremely pleased with their service and quality. That's why I keep going back. I've never owned a Caddy so I can't speak of their service/quality specifically, but I've owned plenty of GM's and the service/quality was horrible. The C6 Corvette looks like a viable option to park next to M3, but I'm still a bit gun-shy when it comes to dealing with GM from my negative past experiences.

Wherther it's true or not, this article seem to show to everyone but die-hard Caddy enthusiasts such as yourselves that GM quality sucks (as usual), and that GM has over-estimated the CTS-V's performance. It did well, but all the initial hype about being a "BMW M beater" was just that. Hype.

The larger question is what is the point of your existence on this board. Most of what you post is negative and then you degrade any discussion to personal attacks. If you don't like Cadillac or GM then why spend countless hours of your time reading and replying to these posts.

Ok Guys
Im Closing This Thread.....apparently People Feel Like Its Ok To Make Attacks On Other Members And Turn My Board Into A Third Grade Class Room....well It Aint, And If I See This Behavior Go On Again In Any Of My Three Boards (cts, Srx, Xlr) The Involved Members Will Be Muted.....i Hope I Am Clear......

If People Still Want To Talk Seriously About This Issue, I Will Reopen It And Delete The Offensive Posts!

Pm Me With Any Comments