Pwned by new gen Caddy CTS-V

[MJC///M3]

this thread is getting stupid...they are all fantastic cars...and we should all consider ourselves lucky to drive such superb machines. Just enjoy them!

[rapistwit]

I don't really get the "this thread is stupid" "what a bunch of fanboys" jab.
The CTS-V is probably a fine car but its still a GM product. Does that escape anyone? GM always manages to bungle great vehicles with poor interiors.
It costs less than an M5 for a reason. And that reason isn't just a brand name.
It's much like my GTR. It's a great car that can definitely run with the big boys but it's less expensive than a 997 Turbo because fit and finish weren't high on Nissans priority list. My guess is that's what GM has done with this.

[shchow]

^^^Agreed.
I would be going into this with my eyes wide open and understand the fit/finish issues that I will most likely encounter down the road.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Epacy2

Exactly, immature fanboys over here who grew up thinking BMW could do no wrong. These are the people we all laugh at while out and about.

Sir,

Touche. Never fails. When a car outperforms the M3, its the tired old American or Japanese lack of quality lame-o argument to justify their blind devotion to their roundel getting spanked on the back roads and at the track at a bargain basement price.

[delman27]

I had the opportunity to drive a new CTS-V at a recent GM event in Arizona. Basically, they throw you the keys, give you a map of interesting roads in the area and off you go.

I have owned two M3's and currently drive a 335 so I am admittedly biased to BMW. With a close minded approach I spent about an hour flogging the CTS-V in 100 degree temps and left with a different opinion. The car has ferocious acceleration, handles on rails and is an absolute blast to drive. It is very docile when loping along, rides comfortably and the interior is interesting in a good way. A Vette with four seats and a better interior works for me.

Some of the plastics are not up to snuff, the exterior looks are love/hate and it did not make me feel like a better driver that some BMW's seem to excel at. I also admittedly fall for the pedigree and history of the M's which adds to the excitement of ownership.

I guess this brute won me over with its stellar performance and obvious grins per dollar factor. Having driven two new M3's and an M5 I can say with confidence that the V would beat them up in most everyday situations. With that said, the BMW's offer a balanced experience that few manufacturers (if any) can replicate. It would be a tough decision for me if it were time to choose another vehicle.

Give the V a run if you can; you will probably walk away with a great deal more respect.

[adc]

Originally Posted by sizquik

Horrid? not really. Actually better materials than the C63 I sat in and felt more expensive.

Yeah - I thought the CTS-V interior is better than the M3 in materials selection, and at least it's equal in fit & finish.

Can't say about the ergonomics.

[ihyln]

Before you guys get all excited about the CTS-V:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...ial-issue.html

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by ihyln

Before you guys get all excited about the CTS-V:

That was a previous generation CTS-V.

You know - like the valve keepers on the '95 E36 M3s, or the oiling problems on the early E46 M3s.

[ihyln]

ah my bad

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by ruff

Sir,

Touche. Never fails. When a car outperforms the M3, its the tired old American or Japanese lack of quality lame-o argument to justify their blind devotion to their roundel getting spanked on the back roads and at the track at a bargain basement price.

Or maybe it's possible for people not to like the car????

This is my first BMW so I'm definitely not a fanboy. I moved to Canada with the intention of buying a Z06 but when I sat in one I couldn't believe how shit it was. The engine couldn't make up for the cesspit I was going to have to sit in every day so I went with the M3 (despite hating BMW's all my life).

The CTS is butt ugly outside and in IMO. I'm allowed to have that opinion despite it not agreeing with yours and it doesn't make me a fanboy. I think the X6 is possibly one of the worst looking cars produced and that's a BMW. When it comes time for my next car the M3 won't be top of my list.

I suggest you go to a CTS site if you want to be guaranteed of people singing your cars praises.

Fact is you don't have to a fanboy to think another car is fuck ugly and with the CTS that's the case. It could be the best car in the world to drive (yeh right) but unless you drive with a blindfold on forget it.

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

cts-v is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. If you really brake it down it hands the M3 its ass in performance for less $$. And performance is where the M3 is supposed to shine...
...

..

.


Right?

I don't think anyone said it didn't. Of course it does. The point was it looks shit and it's going to fall apart in a couple of years and it's made with recycled plastic cups

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by RRGOO7

Ok end thread

You're right. End of thread. It IS as fuck ugly as we said before. It's just that it's also fucking noisy too. You wouldn't mind but it's not even the nice noise most American V8s make.

[Bunkei]

Originally Posted by rapistwit

And an Evo costs less than a 335Xi.
And a C6 costs less than an M3. etc etc
The CTS-V is probably a fine car but gloating about barely beating a 5 year old car is weak.

Is the M5 just any "5 year old car"?

So when the new M5 comes along in a couple of years, are you going to give the CTS-V the same benefit of the doubt since it'll be out 3 to 4 years by that time?

[Bunkei]

Originally Posted by ISFail

Interesting comments. According to the GM boys over at cadillacforums, they are having issues with reliability already including:

transmission failure, check engine lights, faulty shift modules, doors not closing, broken cooling lines, rattling wheels, loose 1/4 panels, navigation failure!

Looking around this forum, I've seen BMW owners who have had very similar issues with their cars. Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Originally Posted by ISFail

And despite having a detuned ZR1 engine and putting down prodigious amounts of hp/tq......the new CTS-V is having problems breaking 12 seconds in the 1/4 mile, when even us IS-F and M3 owners are getting low 12's in stock trim.

All the major magazines have gotten great times out of the CTS-V (Motor Trend: 12.3/C & D: 12.2/R & T: 12.2/Edmunds: 12.4). If owners are having trouble breaking the 12 second barrier in the 1/4, I suspect that it has to do more with the driver than it does with the car.

P.S. I have never seen the M3 or IS-F get low 12's consistently in the instrumented tests from various magazines.

Originally Posted by ISFail

The CTS-V was made specifically to challenge the M5 a car that has been in production for six years now, and rumor has it that the new M5/6 will be a twin turbo making 600 hp so cadillac will have the edge what, one year? And who in their right mind would buy a car from a company that is bankrupt and selling off divisions of their company like Mikey selling lemonade on the local street corner!

I sure would, as Cadillac is very much a part of GM's future (if you bothered to read, you would have known this already). As for the new M5 having 600 hp, you yourself have stated that this is pretty much the same setup as the ZR1, and how much power does it make again?

You could have saved yourself the trouble by saying "I don't like Cadillac/CTS/American car makes" or whatever. While I wouldn't agree with your sentiments, it's a lot better than spewing propoganda like you've done above.

One last note, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that would rather buy from a bankrupt automotive giant here in the U.S. than to buy a car from a company where the controlling stockholders is a family that had ties to the Nazi party, and supplied weapons to them during WWII.