[TugBoat]

If the Nuerburgring Nordschleife numbers from C/D are close (let's assume so), then the CTS-V is in some very fine company. Just for comparison I pulled some recent Porsche times. I know its not the same as looking at say a G35 or M-series times. Would love to know what the other sedans (M's, STi's & Evo) have run on the North Loop. Overall, not bad at all......especially when you consider the cost to performance ratio.

New GT3: 7 min. 54 sec.
Old GT3: 8 min. 03 sec.
GT2: 7 min. 46 sec.
996 Turbo: 7 min. 56 sec.
C/D CTS-V: 8 min. 19 sec.

 

[Brett]

All the reports I've heard is that the CTS-V is faster than both the M5 and the M3. Some of those laps were driven by a BMW driver.

 

[HotRodSaint]

Lusting after Cadillacs. Not since the '60's has this sort of behaviour happened. There must be a 'repubilcan' in charge. :worship:

 

[JEM]

New GT3: 7 min. 54 sec.
Old GT3: 8 min. 03 sec.
GT2: 7 min. 46 sec.
996 Turbo: 7 min. 56 sec.
C/D CTS-V: 8 min. 19 sec.

Now, I have no doubt that the CTS-V is a very quick car, and John Heinricy a very quick driver, but that 8m19s number is just a tick suspicious since the most commonly published 'Ring time for the E39 M5 is 8m20s...

Still, it's good company to be in.

The fastest 'street-legal' car time yet posted is a 7:19, by a Radical SR3 Turbo (http://www.radicalsportscars.com)

I'll just put here what I've put elsewhere:

The official Nurburgring site (includes both the Nordschleife and the Grand Prix track): http://www.nuerburgring.de

Some sample lap times: http://www.nordschleife.no

Sabine Schmitz, BMW Ring-Taxi driver, entertaining the passengers: http://www.bmwm5.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25041

A Brit-based group of 'Ring junkies: http://www.nurburgring.org.uk

There's a pile of other stuff out there.

 

[TugBoat]

JEM,

Thanks for the links! The http://www.nordschleife.no site has some great info. I agree, the "V"s numbers are still WIDE open to debate/speculation, I guess we'll have to wait a couple more months until we get the magazine figures.

Thanks again.

 

[JEM]

The http://www.nordschleife.no site has some great info. I agree, the "V"s numbers are still WIDE open to debate/speculation, I guess we'll have to wait a couple more months until we get the magazine figures.

Make sure to download the Ring-Taxi video. It makes very clear why the Germans have always had a leg up on everyone else when it comes to building real-world suspensions. Thirteen miles of track and not more than a couple hundred yards of straight, flat, level pavement anywhere (except for the front straight, which is so long that they don't dare let the public run it full-length or you'd have BMWs and Porsches stuffed at 180mph all the time...)

It's utterly addictive, I've only run five laps and occasionally think about which relatives I might sell to get back over there.

 

[Divexxtreme]

R&T did a test in this month's issue. Here are the numbers compared to a M5 and a M3. As far as the 8:19 around the Ring, I'll wait and see what a independent tester gets before I put too much faith in it:

CTS-V:

0-60: 5.0
1/4 Mile: 13.4 @ 109 (high Trap Speed)
Slalom: 66 MPH
Braking from 80: 202 ft
Braking from 60: 115 ft

M5:

0-60: 4.8
1/4 Mile: 13.3 @ 108.5
Slalom: 66.4 MPH
Braking from 80: 203 ft
Braking from 60: 116 ft

M3:

0-60: 4.7
1/4 Mile: 13.1 @ 106.8
Slalom: 68.8 MPH
Braking from 80: 200 ft
Braking from 60: 112 ft

 

[gothicaleigh]

Your only post and it is to debunk the V in a thread that has been dormant for months? I understand...

As for the R&T article: Those are some poor V times(which conveniantly fall just short of the Bimmers... hmm...). Here is what I've seen from other mags:

CTS-V LS6 400hp
0 - 60: 4.7 seconds (three ticks difference?)
1/4 mile: 13.1 @ 109mph (13.4 vs. 13.1 and they both reach it at 109? hmm...)

<shocked face> What's that? It matches R&T's M3 numbers when tested by anyone else? :suspect: And from a larger car? I haven't received February's R&t yet, but it would be interesting to hear what their comments on it were...

Also suspicious is the fact that before the test you mention, R&T was never able to pull that kind of time in an M3. Examples of the previous 2 M3 tests(both for '03):

Triple Threat
"With its 3430-lb. curb weight more than 200 lb. less than the next-lightest car (the Mercedes), the M3 paddle-clicks to top honors in acceleration with a 5.0-sec. 0-60 clocking"

David and the Goliaths
4.9 0-60
13.5 1/4 mile
(looks like they dropped a tenth off the 0-60 so it would outdo the Porsche 911 Targa)

Like I said before, I have not received my Feb. issue yet, but am anxious to hear how they came up with those times (worst reported for the V and best ever for the M3)...

 

[Divexxtreme]

Ummm..actually, the times you quoted below, of the CTS-V running a 13.1...is only an estimate from C&D. They haven't actually tested the car yet. If you pay close attention to the article you're talking about, you'll see what I mean <shocked face>. Therefore, the 13.4 isn't the worst reported time for a CTS-V as you've said...it's the ONLY actual tested time by an independent party. Nice try though.

Also, the M3 times you are quoting are with a SMG car. SMG, while quicker from a roll, is always slower than it's standard 6-spoeed counterpart from a stop in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. And since the CTS-V is a 6-speed, it's only makes sense that you should use a 6-speed M3 for a comparison.. Hence the 13.1. Again, nice try.

Nothing against the CTS-V. It's a nice, great performing car. It just looks as though GM may have over-estimated it's abilities.

Your only post and it is to debunk the V in a thread that has been dormant for months? I understand...

As for the R&T article: Those are some poor V times(which conveniantly fall just short of the Bimmers... hmm...). Here is what I've seen from other mags:

CTS-V LS6 400hp
0 - 60: 4.7 seconds (three ticks difference?)
1/4 mile: 13.1 @ 109mph (13.4 vs. 13.1 and they both reach it at 109? hmm...)

<shocked face> What's that? It matches R&T's M3 numbers when tested by anyone else? :suspect: And from a larger car? I haven't received February's R&t yet, but it would be interesting to hear what their comments on it were...

Also suspicious is the fact that before the test you mention, R&T was never able to pull that kind of time in an M3. Examples of the previous 2 M3 tests(both for '03):

Triple Threat
"With its 3430-lb. curb weight more than 200 lb. less than the next-lightest car (the Mercedes), the M3 paddle-clicks to top honors in acceleration with a 5.0-sec. 0-60 clocking"

David and the Goliaths
4.9 0-60
13.5 1/4 mile
(looks like they dropped a tenth off the 0-60 so it would outdo the Porsche 911 Targa)

Like I said before, I have not received my Feb. issue yet, but am anxious to hear how they came up with those times (worst reported for the V and best ever for the M3)...

 

[silver bullet]

The september 03 issue of automobile magazine, has a good drivers report on the CTSV at the Nuerburgring. And they beat the current M3 lap times. But why quibble over fractions of seconds. For a first attempt Cadillac has a great car and lets all hope they continue to improve it.silver bullet 2004 CTS silver 3.6 lux & sport package

 

[jokergrin]

I don't care what Motor Trend or Car & Driver quotes as the 1/4 mile time. Get me behind a CTS-V and I'll guarantee high 12 second time slips stock...

 

[ctsvinman]

Magazine racing..... you can debate, debate some more and debate even more.... Until some realistic 1/4 times and Dyno pulls start piling up by REAL drivers (you know.... us guys and gals who for very good reasons are not on the Drag Racing or autocross circuit)...

until that time, we'll just have to wait and see if this is a low 13sec or high 12sec stock vehicle at the track and if this is truely a pleasure to drive like an M5 in the twissssties.

VinMan out

 

[gothicaleigh]

I received the new Feb. issue of R&T today. Surprisingly, it's a very positive review overall and I see where the time discrepency comes from.

From R&T's Test Notes:
"Acceleration runs in the V are an excersize in finding just the right amount of wheelspin and minimizing axle tramp. We believe GM's claim of 4.6 seconds to 60, but suspect it's possible by speed shifting, which we won't do."

I still can't find an M3 run that produced a 13.1 quarter mile... maybe I'm just blind, so where did you see that Divex?

 

[GNSCOTT]

a 109 trap in ANY car is a high 12 low 13, and why the hell would anyone spend $75k and buy an M5 when its microns above the M3? I'll guarantee there will be some mid 12's @111 buy competent drivers on a well prepped track bone stock.

 

[aussie2u]

and why the hell would anyone spend $75k and buy an M5 when its microns above the M3?

Now don't go knockin what magazines claim is the finest production sedan in the world. The M5 is a larger car with more luxury and a very sophisticated V8 engine. The car is so over engineered and refined, it's nearly bulletproof. The M3 on the other hand is smaller & lighter, making it more tossible as one would expect it to be. They're both great machines but if all a person wants is the best 1/4 mile times, they've missed the point of both of these cars. I'll be happy if the CTS-V can deliver 80% of either car in total satisfaction.

 

[JEM]

a 109 trap in ANY car is a high 12 low 13, and why the hell would anyone spend $75k and buy an M5 when its microns above the M3? I'll guarantee there will be some mid 12's @111 buy competent drivers on a well prepped track bone stock.

FWIW, GM's number on the CTS-V is 13.1 @ 107, straight off their website. A very good number.

But if dragstrip performance defined a car, there's a lot cheaper ways to run 12s. Or 11s, or...one might as well go buy a Mustang Cobra, swap out the IRS for a stick axle, and throw the AC and other heavy stuff in the garbage.

The blower V8 and turbo V12 Benzes (any one of which will run low-12s dead stock, the turbo V12s will run high-11s with a chip), M5s, M3s, blower Jags, CTS-Vs, even Z06s - they're all expensive and compromised as quarter-milers.

The M5 is a bigger car than an M3, and if it's not quite the track car the M3 is, there's damn few cars that are as all-around useful or as relaxing and comfortable at seriously high speeds in road use.

The CTS-V is not going to be the quickest straight-liner in its class. The E55's got that one locked up for now. But it may have the best all-around balance, particularly when price tag is factored in.

 

[ctsvinman]

JEM,

You last sentence sums it up, The CTS-V will be an excellent example of "Best Bang for Buck"!

That is.... a stock 4 door "high end" sedan that holds 5 people. You can use it for business (for us guys who have to drive a 4-door) and you can also drag, street or track race for your pleasure.

At 50k I'm surprised I'm saying bang for the Buck, but compared to the RS6, AMG and M5. This CTS-V will be a nice bargain for us guys who are not as fortunate when it comes to our bank account balance.

Plus... you won't have to hit your home equity line of credit for MODS.

The M5..... Good God! I have done so much research on M5's, my wife thinks I'm a lunatic, so I can say with confidence that most MODS cost a fortune.

VinMan out.....

 

[rueben44]

To be honest the E55 is not competition for the CTS-V. It is strange how when the V is compared with the Germans the magazines reach up to the M5 and E55 and the CTS rightfully is compared to the 3 series, C Class and A4 Audi. I believe Cadillac's times and we have no reason to think they would lie about the cars performance.

I also find it strange that the M all of a sudden is producing faster times. Also the CTS was also driven by a Beemer driver on the track and bested the M's times.

What ever thought some will believe GM is lying about there times and the track performance but BMW’s numbers are right on point so let’s just wait for the comparisons.

 

[GNSCOTT]

No one said anything about 1/4 mile times alone. Look at the lap performance between the M3 and M5. My comparison is between all 3 cars. You could pay $20k plus for an M5 over an M3 or CTSV just to have a bigger car. If you can find the $20k difference justification between an M3 and M5, i'd say you would have to be a world class racer and even then i'm not sure.

BTW, Cadillac's 13.1 claim isn't claimed by GM. It says it was done by independent tester. Like every car, there are some faster than others, and i'm sure we will see improved times. As for improved lap times, probably not seeing how the car was tested by top drivers, not magazine testers alone.

 

[Divexxtreme]

No, you're not blind. Just looking in the wrong place. Look in the back of a Road and Track magazine before the Feb edition (they seem to have purged out any tests that are older than two years). They ran a 13.1 in their 6-speed M3 in 2001. The M3 is a difficult car to launch, so unfortunately the mags tend to run slower times. Add to that it's not made to drag race anyway.

I've personally run a 13.06 in my SMG M3 with a 2.01 60' time (looking forward to my upcoming supercharger ).

Here's a vid of a *bone* stock M3 running a 12.77 @ 107 with a 1.81 60' time. The driver and his car were both featured in a issue of Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords. They pitted him against the new Cobra.

http://www.daftproductions.com/m3/cap0004.mpg

And here's a video of a bone stock M3 beating a slightly modified 2003 Z06. Granted, had the Z06 gotten a better start, he would have won. But that's how it goes on the street sometimes:

http://tunersdatabase.com/maxbimmer/m3vsz06.mpg

Again, I think the CTS-V is an outstanding car with great performance numbers. But when people call it a "M3 or M5 killer", I have to smile.

I received the new Feb. issue of R&T today. Surprisingly,
I still can't find an M3 run that produced a 13.1 quarter mile... maybe I'm just blind, so where did you see that Divex?