Cadillac Owners Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
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
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
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.:D

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.:D

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.

gothicaleigh said:
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)...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
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.:rolleyes:

gothicaleigh said:
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?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
The difference in price for the M-5 over the M3 is for having a larger vehicle with 4-doors. The M3 outperforms the M5 and is the pinnacle of BMW's M division. They've won dozens all of those racing championships with the M3. Not the M5. The M5, as outstanding as it is, was an afterthought for BMW M. They wanted a fast car that older, less aggressive drivers would want. This seems to be the target market for the CTS-V as well. It will be behind the power curve in it's class of large, high-HP 4-door sedans (upcoming 500HP M-5, E55, R6S, etc..), but for the price it's a great choice.



GNSCOTT said:
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Because there isn't a specific class for cars such as the CTS-V, M5, RS-6, etc..so Cadillac smartly decided to race it in the GT class. Audi did the same thing with their RS-6. Good call on Caddy's part actually. It's gets the CTS-V exposure and gets their name out there as a racing manufacturer. But the lightened, lowered, high-HP race cars aren't anything like the production cars. The production CTS-V is a DIRECT competitor of the other 4-doors sedans that weigh over 3700 lbs. Cars like the M-5, RS-6, E55 AMG, etc.. Wait until the mags do direct comparison tests and you'll see what I mean.

Speaking of the new RS6, here's a link to video of a stock M3 beating a 450HP Twin Turbo RS6 from roll.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=34209


darrelld said:
If what you state is true then why expend the resources to go against the M3 et.,al.;

http://www.world-challenge.com/news/04press1.html
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I'm not a "BMW brand loyalist". I'm a car enthusiast. The only reason I bought an M3 is because I don't feel there's a single car under 100k on the planet that can match in overall value and performance. The Z06 will outperform it, sure. But that's all does well. It's too one-dimensional. It's not what I would call a "nice, quality car". Plus it only has two seats.

As far R&T doing there test with the wind at their back, I take it you completely missed the videos I posted on the previous page? Low 13's for M3's are commonplace. Mid-13's are the result of bad drivers. Just like the R&T runs 13.1's in the 2003 Cobra, which any car enthusiast knows is a consistent high 12 second car. Or take the Z06, I've seen a stock one run a high 11 on OEM tires. That's much faster than any of the mags have run. Maybe the CTS-V will be competetive, maybe it won't. But right now it's all hype with no solid numbers.

Like I said, the Caddy is a great car. But BMW with it's next-gen 500HP lightened M5 and 400-425 HP lightened M3 have nothing to worry about from Cadillac.

rueben44 said:
I think the point of all of this should be brand loyalist facing the truth.

BMW's official M3 numbers are 4.8 Sec 0-60 and 13.4 1/4 mile.

Cadillac offers numbers that are what 4.6 or 4.7 at this time and we have no reason to distrust that so those people that would like to indicate Cadillac is lying should really stop.

Let's just wait for the comparisons of the two cars so that BMW loyalist can face true hard facts and not finagle out of the truth with weak numbers that no one but that magazine has ever produced. I am speaking of unbiased sources and even BMW it self doesn't offer the number that R&T does. Please both need to be tested at the same time on the same track. I would not be surprised if R&T did that test with the wind at there backs.

It will come down to V6 vs. V8, 333Hp vs. 400Hp and two cars that can carve up the road so we will see!!!!! We will see!!!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
LOL....if a car's faster, it's faster. Period. Just like a E55 AMG will demolish an M3. I could care less. It's supposed to. Stop being so insecure.:annoyed:




darrelld said:
Yes imagine the embarassment of the M3 driver beaten by a 4 door Cadillac, the bimmer boys bristle with denial and disbelief.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
It's typically based on HP numbers and size. The S-4 because of it's 350 HP, competes against the M3, Porsche 911, Corvette (non-Z06), etc.. even though it's got 4-doors. But now that there are so many sedan type sports cars, it gets a little confusing. Wait until the comparison tests start coming out. You'll see the CTS-V compete in the same class as the E55, Jag, RS-6, etc since it has over 400 HP and is a BIG car. The Jag S-Type R, for example, always gets smoked by those cars (M5, E55, RS6)in performance tests, but since it's so large and has a good amount of HP (390), it's never pitted against the M3, C32, 911, etc..



rueben44 said:
I am not trying to argue with you but since when does a cars weight determine its class?

Let me ask this in the last comparisons the CTS was put up against what cars? If I remember correctly it was cars in the 30-40K range such as the Jag, BMW 3, IS300 etc. not Benz E class, BMW 5** or what ever.

Funny what car does the S4 go up against? The M3!!! and the S4 is a 4 door car as the CTS-V is. I am sorry it is bias the way they operate. What do you think the STS-V is going to do batter with? The E55 and M5 not the S55 which is way up there in price.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
What do you mean the Z0-7? The C-6 Z-06 with 500 HP isn't even out yet and won't be for at least two years, and by that time both the next-gen M3/M4 and M5 will be out as well. THe 635 HP Blue Devil will be out a year after that, but that's a specialty car that will cosat over 100k. And yes, BMW is going to a V-8 for the M3. They are doing what they need to do to keep up with the HP wars. They've already proven they can beat the competition's big V-8's with their little inline 6-cylinder (very embarrassing for GM and Ford), but when the competiton starts using FI V-8's and large displacement N/A V-8's that make over 500 HP, it's time to beat them at their own game. And since BMW won't use turbo or superchargers like Porsche does, a lightweight V-8 is the obvious choice.



darrelld said:
By the time this event occurs the next generation Z07 producing 700hp+ is slated for the CTSV.

Even BMW is abandoning the current 6 to achieve this amount of reliable power.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I think the main thing you're missing here is that the other manufacturers have been chasing BMW for ever. This year, they caught up. But they only caught up with BMW's older cars. The New cars will put BMW on top again. As it always will be when it comes to a car that does everthing right, BMW will reign. I'm considering buying a C-6 Z06 to park next to my M-3 when it comes out, but I would never replace my m3 with one.

rueben44 said:
Out of all car manufactures owners BMW's seem to be the most arrogant when it comes to some one doing battle with there make. I understand BMW has been the best for about 15 years now but some times it is time to concede and except the inevitable. You will no longer sit on top. If BMW does come out a V10 in the next M3, I wish they would, GM will only boost the power of the CTS's motor and a good old American V8 will win out. Not to mention the fuel economy war is already being won and BMW reaching will only expand the gap.

I don't want to argue with you I want one magazine to do a comparison between the two at the same time and we will see. Like I said before if you look at the official numbers from the two makes BMW looses I could can less what Joe Schmo get in number when I don't know what he has done to the car.

Plus have you heard the next Corvette Z06 will have 500HP!!! The engine is lighter than the past one also and if Caddy were to put that in the CTS-V as it is rumored they will well…….Good by BMW!!!!! Remember that will be without a loss of fuel economy. Do you think BMW can or will be able to say the same?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
LOL..so "car enthusiast" means "German sympathizer" in your book, huh? I'll be sure to remember that when I'm fighting in Iraq the next 6-months. :rolleyes:

Well, it's been fun! I'm off to drive my M now! Looking forward to the comparison tests.:)



darrelld said:
Germany and its sympathizers have had this superior attitude throughout history.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Your point? I guess you forgot who supplied Iraq with attack helicopters and weapons in the 80s's when they were fighting Iran. The USA. Or the 24 american companies that supplied Iraq with the materials needed to produce it's weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/nsi94098.htm

This is about cars. Not politics. If you're idea of supporting our government is by not purchasing german cars, so be it. But I have fought in 2 wars already (first Gulf war and Afghanistan) and am about to fight in number 3. I think I've earned the right to drive whatever the hell I want to without having some armchair politician preach to me about how bad it is that I drive a german car.

I normally don't resort to personal attacks, but stop being such an imbecile, and quit bringing politics into a freakin' car discussion.:annoyed:


darrelld said:
Good luck in Iraq and watch out for those missles that Sadaam developed with help from your German friends.

German-made electronics were the heart of the Iraqi Scud warhead fusing mechanism. The very same fusing mechanism was employed effectively by Iraq when a Scud fell on the U.S. Army barracks outside Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 American soldiers and wounding over 100 others.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Missile/2970_2971.html
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Gospel? Uh...okay. It's just what GM is telling the press, but if you want to vcall it Gospel, go right ahead. For the life of me I can't understand what is so difficult about researching something on your own. By the way, this is old and outdated news.

From Autoweek:

"Only the C6coupe will debut in Detroit. The convertible will be shown later in the year, and the Z06 will be a 2006 model-year item. Hill said it will differ more from the C6 on which it is based than today's Z06 is from the C5, and talk of 500 hp is widespread. Thanks to the existence of the Cadillac XLR for the luxury touring car crowd, Corvette engineers will be free to concentrate on the performance side of the equation. It's looking like an exciting time for Corvette fans."

Info on the Blue Devil from Autoweek::

While chief engineer Dave Hill has publicly announced the Z06 version of the next-gen Vette due in 2005 will have 500 hp, his engine team wasn’t sure until recently that they could actually achieve that impressive figure. Sources now say that it will be a case of “nothing beats cubic inches” with 95 extra horses (compared to today’s 405-hp Z06) coming as a result of boring and stroking the next-gen Chevy small-block V8 to 427 cubic inches—7.0 liters. Not since the late-1960s has that magic number of cubes been under a Corvette’s composite hood (though there were some 454s along the way).

More important, Chevy is clearly investigating an ultra-performance Corvette designed to do battle with—and conquer—the mid-engined GT from rival Ford, as well as many supercars from across the pond. Called Blue Devil (no one knows why it has that name—could it be Chevy hopes to bedevil Ford’s blue oval?), unofficial stats make the name seem appropriate. Reportedly producing 625 hp, Blue Devil’s initial power will come from a supercharged 427 engine—and it will use lightweight carbon fiber for key body parts, reducing weight by several hundred pounds to drop the super C6 to about 2900 pounds.

The price indicated on the internal documents is $100,000 for Blue Devil, if and when it actually makes production in 2006—at the earliest. "

Now, for your other comments.

No. The M3 does not come in a 4-door, and it hasn't in over 6 years. And no, the CTS-V has NOT beaten the M3. There hasn't been a independent test yet, remember? Also, the CTS-V has 400 HP. The current M3 has 333 HP. The extra HP makes up for the extra weight of the CTS-V when it comes to acceleration.

The next-gen M3 will have at least 400HP and will weigh over 400 lbs less than the CTS-V. The next-gen M5 will have 500HP and weigh approximately the same as the CTS-V. That is why I guarantee BMW has absolutely NOTHING to worry about from Cadillac. Sorry to burst your bubble. :rolleyes:



GNSCOTT said:
Don't know where you get your Vette info, but you speak as if it is gospel. Where have you read that a ZO6 won't be out for a year and that the Blue Devil won't be out for 2 years??? Also, didn't a BMW tester/driver beat his best lap ever in an M5 the first time out in the CTSV? Gee wonder what some seat time would do for him??? Now as for weight since you seem to think it doesn't matter....It beat your M3 and it weighs a hell of alot more. Aren't there 4 door M3's, how well do they compare to the 4 door CTSV????
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Darrelld - You should really be careful when talking about other people's "personal issues". You're the one that seems to have some sort of sick obsession with Al Pacino. Not me.:cookoo: :bonkers:

Lastly, you really need to stop being so insecure. I know that getting tossed headfirst into trashcans all throughout high school has left some deep emotional scars, but you're safe now. No big-bad BMW drivers are going to pick on you anymore. I promise.:histeric:

Oh, and nice Camaro by the way.:rolleyes2


darrelld said:
A lot of inferences to justify your attacks.

No one stated patriotism is related to car ownership, your psychological problems seem to have overcome your judgment. I don't buy BMW's because of the bland "Me Too Styling" and the crappy customer support you get. Not to mention the personal issues a number of their owners seem to have.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Continue? No, I think I've made my point. Just so you know, this thread only began to degrade after you made the following (and very self-revealing) post:

"Germany and its sympathizers have had this superior attitude throughout history."

Without that "classy" comment, we probably wouldn't have had a debate in the first place.

darrelld said:
I am certainly impressed by the demonstration of class and sophistication that flows from the doors of your Bavarian sewer pipe on wheels.

Please continue...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Absolutely Leigh, the CTS-V will surely put Volkswagon and Saab in their place.:D The other german manufacturers, however, have nothing to worry about.

gothicaleigh said:
We americans are known for our arrogance too.

Being american, I'm glad we now have a sport sedan to hold over germany's head. :D
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
It's unfortunate that the EOD community has a someone like yourself representing them.

darrelld said:
If you know anything about history and Germany the arrogance is self evident, and you have certainly proved my point by your interpretation and ensuing downward spiral of elitist comments.

Certainly no questioning of patriotism was implied and I wish you the best with your Iraq tour. I used to work for DOD as an EOD Tech and members of my family still do.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
This may surprise you, but I completely agree. Unless the next-gen M4 comes with over 450HP, I'll be jumping ship to get a C6 Z06.

I'm somewhat brand loyal, but if the brand I like isn't making the car I want...I'll buy something else. GM has been doing a wonderful job with the Z06. It has good reliability, great mileage and I don't have to tell you about the it's performance capabilities (wish the resale was better though). Of course I'll keep my M3 for what I feel is the "ultimate" daily driver, but the Z06 will be my weekend performance car. :D


JEM said:
Likewise.

We own a couple Bimmers because, for the past 30 years, when you went out into the US car market and looked around for a decently fast and fun (around corners, not just straight-line), practical (four usable seats and sufficient doors to get to them), comfortable rear-wheel drive car there was flat nothing from Detroit and very little from Japan, and if you want a manual transmission you're left with BMW and only a few others. It also helps that they are decently well built (though certainly far from perfect) and have an enormously active user community.

BMW needs competition to keep them honest. We've been very happy with our Bimmers, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't consider something else. I'd be inclined to favor a US-manufactured vehicle, and in a perfect world even one with a US nameplate on it, but first and foremost it has to be a good product with good support and a competitive pricetag.

If GM can do that, so much the better.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
That's based entitrely on brand loyalty. Some people stick to their brands no matter what and this study shows it. Also, Hyundai is a great company. They make inexpensive cars that do what they are intended to do, and they do it well.

While we're on the subject of answering question for each other, perhaps you can tell me why BMW is the number one rated brand in resale this year?

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/10/pf/autos/retained_value/



darrelld said:
Question for you BMW guys.

If the cars are as great as you say why does BMW have a repeat buyer percentage lower than Hyundai?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/chi-0401190004jan19,0,7373406.story?coll=chi-classifiedcars-hed
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top