CTS-V vs M5 vs C63....

[OBI_agent]

Model Year: 2008
Make: BMW
Model: M5
Style: 4dr Sedan (5.0L 10cyl 7ACM)
Base Price: $86,675
Price as Tested: $96,020
Options on Test Vehicle: Front Ventilated Seats, Heated Rear Seats, M Multifunction Seats With Lumbar Support, Head-Up Display, Sirius Satellite Radio, Perforated Merino Leather, Comfort Access.
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 7-speed auto-clutch manual

0 - 30 (sec): 2.3
0 - 45 (sec): 3.6
0 - 60 (sec): 4.8
0 - 75 (sec): 6.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.8 @ 115.1
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.5
30 - 0 (ft): 29
60 - 0 (ft): 110
Slalom (mph): 68.9
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.88

Model Year: 2009
Make: Cadillac
Model: CTS-V
Style: 4dr Sedan
Base Price: $59,995
Price as Tested: $64,160
Options on Test Vehicle: 6-speed Automatic Transmission (no charge); Hard Drive-Based Navigation System and Music Server ($2,145); Premium Paint ($995); Microfiber Suede Accents ($300); Performance Brake Rotors ($325); Differential Cooler ($400 dealer installed).
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 6-speed manual (6L90 Hydra-Matic Automatic optional)

0 - 30 (sec): 1.8
0 - 45 (sec): 3.0
0 - 60 (sec): 4.3
0 - 75 (sec): 6.1
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.4 @ 114.7
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.0
30 - 0 (ft): 27
60 - 0 (ft): 104
Slalom (mph): 69.2
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.89

Model Year: 2009
Make: Mercedes-Benz
Model: C-Class
Style: C63 AMG 4dr Sedan (6.2L 8cyl 7A)
Base Price: $58,075
Price as Tested: $66,880
Options on Test Vehicle: Metallic Paint, iPod Integration Kit, AMG Seating Package, Multimedia Package, TeleAid, Premium 2 Package.
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 7-speed automatic

0 - 30 (sec): 2.0
0 - 45 (sec): 3.1
0 - 60 (sec): 4.5
0 - 75 (sec): 6.4
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.6 @ 112.3
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.2
30 - 0 (ft): 29
60 - 0 (ft): 111
Slalom (mph): 69.0
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.89

Click on Source

[swamp2]

I have seen significantly better numbers from the M5. One test does not provide enough natural variation to see a clear winner. This variation of results will tell you with equal drivers which car will typically win. You can see the wide spread of result we have kept track of for the M3 here

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have seen significantly better numbers from the M5. One test does not provide enough natural variation to see a clear winner. This variation of results will tell you with equal drivers which car will typically win. You can see the wide spread of result we have kept track of for the M3 here

The numbers make sense.

We have seen better numbers for every car tested here. They are accurate, they were tested at the same time at the same place. The M5 is clearly capable of better, each of them are.

If you look at the numbers you see what we generally know. The M5 is weak from a stop and hard to launch. However, once moving it is the fastest car out of the bunch.

The C63 is easy to launch but has the lowest trap speed numbers. It is the weakest up top but strong from a stop with that big motor.

The CTS-V is all around a beast.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Sticky

The numbers make sense.

We have seen better numbers for every car tested here. They are accurate, they were tested at the same time at the same place. The M5 is clearly capable of better, each of them are.

If you look at the numbers you see what we generally know. The M5 is weak from a stop and hard to launch. However, once moving it is the fastest car out of the bunch.

The C63 is easy to launch but has the lowest trap speed numbers. It is the weakest up top but strong from a stop with that big motor.

The CTS-V is all around a beast.

I am in agreement with sticky on this one. The M5 is the trickier to get moving though should be quickest after the ton (not that these opportunities appear to often). The real surprise was the lap time, this is a Caddy for the new millenium, one that handles instead of walloping from corner to corner.

Did read the whole article, did the order run with CTS-V voted the winner followed by C63 and the M5 bring up the rear?

[1º]

interesting...

i dont like the CTSs looks, but i respect its performance.

[OBI_agent]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have seen significantly better numbers from the M5. One test does not provide enough natural variation to see a clear winner. This variation of results will tell you with equal drivers which car will typically win. You can see the wide spread of result we have kept track of for the M3 here

I see your point. The trap speed on the M5 was highest between the trio. Maybe, if you kept going above the 1/4 mile mark, the M5 will take over the trio.

About the 1/4 mile, maybe a set of stickier tyres would have done a better job in getting out of the hole.

Model: M5
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.8 @ 115.1

Model: CTS-V
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.4 @ 114.7

Model: C63 AMG
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.6 @ 112.3


Edit: I did check the here and this is what I have been looking for ages. I am so obsessed with these numbers that I was thinking of writting them down but now I dont need to and I can check and update on your thread. I know these numbers dont mean anything in real life situaton but it does give you an idea of how capable they are.

So, thank you Swamp....smart thinking on the behalf gathering all the 1/4 mil2, 0-200km, 200-0, etc info and putting it in one thread

Originally Posted by footie

Did read the whole article, did the order run with CTS-V voted the winner followed by C63 and the M5 bring up the rear?

Yeh, that's right. (1st CTS-V) (2nd C63 AMG) (3rd M5)

Originally Posted by 1º

interesting...

i dont like the CTSs looks, but i respect its performance.

It doesnt look that bad but I do agree on the performance. It's a hell of a car for that price. Plus, it's supercharged so it can be tuned further if you want to

[shchow]

Heinricy(CTS-V) and Auberlein(M5) both went at it head to head on a track and the times were a wash on a prior issue of a popular car mag (can't remember which one). That was a very telling comparison, since both professional drivers are extremely familiar with their respective cars.
Conclusion of the discussion several months ago on the M5board...the M5 is a 4 year old car, and the CTS-V had to demonstrate clear superiority, which it did not in that comparison. The one aspect that is a clear advantage is the price of the car.
The C63 does not belong in this comparison, different class of car. It is smaller and lighter, of course it is going to be more nimble.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have seen significantly better numbers from the M5. One test does not provide enough natural variation to see a clear winner. This variation of results will tell you with equal drivers which car will typically win. You can see the wide spread of result we have kept track of for the M3 here

Of course, the difference here is that the cars went head to head, with whatever ambient conditions existed at the time. This is the second head to head performance test (that I am aware of) where the Cadillac won. The first was in that track test in Road & Track where the CTS-V prevailed by a half second or so in lap times.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by shchow

Heinricy(CTS-V) and Auberlein(M5) both went at it head to head on a track and the times were a wash on a prior issue of a popular car mag (can't remember which one). That was a very telling comparison, since both professional drivers are extremely familiar with their respective cars.
Conclusion of the discussion several months ago on the M5board...the M5 is a 4 year old car, and the CTS-V had to demonstrate clear superiority, which it did not in that comparison. The one aspect that is a clear advantage is the price of the car.
The C63 does not belong in this comparison, different class of car. It is smaller and lighter, of course it is going to be more nimble.

The Road & Track test was only a wash if you're driving an M5. For the rest of us, the Cadillac won - albeit by a small (half-second-or-so) margin. Heinricy had the advantage of familiarity with the car, but Auberlen has absolute international cred as a race driver, and Heinricy does not.

I don't mind M5 drivers consoling themselves any way they can, but to say that the Cadillac is four years newer and thus must demonstrate a bigger performance difference is pretty damned weak. In addition, the 1.1 second difference at Willow (again while head to head) suggests a clear superiority for those of us who don't have an axe to grind.

Plus, of course, you don't have to get iDrive.

Bruce

[footie]

Bruce,

You could include the 14 seconds improvement at the Nurburgring to both Willow and the Road & Track test victories for the Caddy.

The CTS-V is an impressive (Ugly looking) car.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

Bruce,

You could include the 14 seconds improvement at the Nurburgring to both Willow and the Road & Track test victories for the Caddy.

The CTS-V is an impressive (Ugly looking) car.

Just out of curiosity, do you know how SportAuto tests the cars? If memory serves, the CTS-V was equipped with race seats, a cage, and multi-point race belts. Cadillac says the car was heavier than stock (as a result of the cage), but I'm assuming a slight performance advantage because of the added chassis stiffness.

The real reason I'm asking is that we both know how advantageous race belts are in such a situation. Instead of bracing and bruising yourself against various interior bits, you're more or less sitting there as if it were a day at the office by comparison.

My standard routine was to tighten the five-point belts in the pits until they were very uncomfortable, then tighten them again pretty much to the limit of my strength after the warmup lap.

If SportAuto routinely installs multi-point belts for their tests (which they damned well ought to), then we're talking a bit more apples to apples in terms of comparing the cars.

Of course, it clearly seems that the Cadillac has the performance advantage, regardless.

In regard to how the car looks, beauty is obviously in the eyes of the beholder, but I can tell you that in person, the car is very impressive to me.

Bruce

[shchow]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I don't mind M5 drivers consoling themselves any way they can, but to say that the Cadillac is four years newer and thus must demonstrate a bigger performance difference is pretty damned weak.

I would respectfully disagree with this assertion. Early 2000's, 500hp vehicles were still relatively rare. Now, every car seems to have 500hp or more. Of course the CTS-V will have newer technology, or more expensive technology that is now more affordable, installed into it. You have to EXPECT the CTS-V to have better performance. The fact that the Heinricy/Auberlein comparo was so close says alot. And the fact that Caddy targeted a car that is 4 years old, and still arguably considered the benchmark, says alot.
To illustrate this point, Top Gear compared some classic sports cars (I think an old Aston, and some other classic) with a current generation Honda. The Honda destroyed both of those cars in sheer performance.
So you cannot discount the advantage of time and technological advances.
I will agree, obviously, that the CTS-V is the better performing car than the M both objectively and subjectively. Hell, I'm probably going to get the CTS-V when my lease is up, assuming the next generation M5 doesn't blow it out of the water.

Shih-han

[footie]

There is one thing that all the other M5 rivals had over the BMW during their development. That is the M5 as a reference point and yard stick to guage their progress.

When you consider that only the RS6 and Caddy have really improved over what BMW achieve it's really says something about BMW's achieve.

[Garissimo]

Cadillac targets the M5 and develops a sedan that outperforms it (by either a smidge or more depending on which comparison you believe) for $30K less. Their engineers deserve a bravo for that, no question.

The real question is: Are you willing to buy a $60K, techno-laden sedan from a company teetering on the brink of bankruptcy knowing GM's track record for first year model releases?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by shchow

I would respectfully disagree with this assertion. Early 2000's, 500hp vehicles were still relatively rare. Now, every car seems to have 500hp or more. Of course the CTS-V will have newer technology, or more expensive technology that is now more affordable, installed into it. You have to EXPECT the CTS-V to have better performance. The fact that the Heinricy/Auberlein comparo was so close says alot. And the fact that Caddy targeted a car that is 4 years old, and still arguably considered the benchmark, says alot.
To illustrate this point, Top Gear compared some classic sports cars (I think an old Aston, and some other classic) with a current generation Honda. The Honda destroyed both of those cars in sheer performance.
So you cannot discount the advantage of time and technological advances.
I will agree, obviously, that the CTS-V is the better performing car than the M both objectively and subjectively. Hell, I'm probably going to get the CTS-V when my lease is up, assuming the next generation M5 doesn't blow it out of the water.

Shih-han

The one thing I can agree with is that the M5 absolutely was widely regarded as the benchmark - with the caveat that there were real challenges to the throne in the form of the E55/63 and RS6.

But high tech? The CTS-V is an OHV two-valve engine with a blower bolted on it. High-tech advances are not part of this deal. That's one of the reasons it can be sold for such a price.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

...The real question is: Are you willing to buy a $60K, techno-laden sedan from a company teetering on the brink of bankruptcy knowing GM's track record for first year model releases?

As mentioned, I disagree with the characterization that the CTS-V is in any way high tech.

As far as GM's current track record is concerned, I'd match it against BMW's any day.

Bankruptcy? Not to turn this into another kind of forum, but I personally believe GM should be allowed to go into receivership, and in spite of GM's current record of developing good products out of the box (CTS, Malibu, G8, various trucks, etc.), we'll get more and better product from them.

And with the caveat that my 401K/IRAs are now down enough so it's just not the time for such a move, yes, I'd buy one. Maybe in a couple of years when one comes off lease.

Bruce

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

But high tech? The CTS-V is an OHV two-valve engine with a blower bolted on it. High-tech advances are not part of this deal. That's one of the reasons it can be sold for such a price.

Bruce

Bruce,

It all depends what you class as hi-tech, I think cylinder head technology peaked with the side-valve.

If everyone gets hung up on the price then the technical achieves and differences of each brand become irrelevance. You can't expect something which is homegrown to be priced the same as something which is manufactured in another country and facing duty, freight, different wage and manufacturing costs, etc to compete on price.

A perfect example of this is the ZR1, in the UK it's over £100K.

Lets just look at the achievements of each and leave to retail price at the showroom door.

P.S.

I hate the looks (externally) but you can't knock the car, it won over James May which is an achievement in it's own right. If they could tone down the chrome and it's angular design I reckon it's a car which could have found favour in Europe, but as it is I doubt sales outside of the States will be limited to your overseas Forces.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by OBI_agent

So, thank you Swamp....smart thinking on the behalf gathering all the 1/4 mil2, 0-200km, 200-0, etc info and putting it in one thread

I just add to the list and maintain and clean it a bit. It wasn't really my idea. Go ahead and add to it as you like. Please put new results in blue, southlight started that and it is really convenvient.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Of course, the difference here is that the cars went head to head, with whatever ambient conditions existed at the time. This is the second head to head performance test (that I am aware of) where the Cadillac won. The first was in that track test in Road & Track where the CTS-V prevailed by a half second or so in lap times.

Bruce

Indeed this is valuable to have such "apples to apples" comparos. However nothing beats having a broader spread with many more datapoints. It tells you about the best/worst case scenarios and the standard deviation. Of course you are more likely to capture the absolute best possible performance figures as well.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As mentioned, I disagree with the characterization that the CTS-V is in any way high tech.

World's "fastest reacting suspension", Cadillac's first paddle mounted shift system, driveline designed to cope with power and torque no GM sedan has ever seen before (consider the weight, too), performance traction management system...you don't consider any of these features high tech or high risk?

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As far as GM's current track record is concerned, I'd match it against BMW's any day.

That's a match you'd lose. Especially if you compare the last version CTS-V with either the E39 or E60 M5.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Bankruptcy? Not to turn this into another kind of forum, but I personally believe GM should be allowed to go into receivership, and in spite of GM's current record of developing good products out of the box (CTS, Malibu, G8, various trucks, etc.), we'll get more and better product from them.

And with the caveat that my 401K/IRAs are now down enough so it's just not the time for such a move, yes, I'd buy one. Maybe in a couple of years when one comes off lease.

Bruce

They might not be around in a couple years if they keep up the way they're going. On the positive side, you can probably get a hell of a deal on a new CTS-V if you're willing to roll the dice.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

World's "fastest reacting suspension", Cadillac's first paddle mounted shift system, driveline designed to cope with power and torque no GM sedan has ever seen before (consider the weight, too), performance traction management system...you don't consider any of these features high tech or high risk?

No, and no. Those technologies have all been around for years.

Originally Posted by Garissimo

That's a match you'd lose. Especially if you compare the last version CTS-V with either the E39 or E60 M5.

That's a match I'd win - unless I compare the last version CTS-V with either the E39 or E60 M5.

Originally Posted by Garissimo

They might not be around in a couple years if they keep up the way they're going. On the positive side, you can probably get a hell of a deal on a new CTS-V if you're willing to roll the dice.

We've each stated our opinion on whether or not it makes sense to buy a CTS-V right now. It differs, right? No need to keep restating.

Bruce

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

No, and no. Those technologies have all been around for years.

"Been around for years" and "implemented on a GM first year run model" are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

That's a match I'd win - unless I compare the last version CTS-V with either the E39 or E60 M5.

Touche. But we both know that's the comparison that matters in this instance.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

We've each stated our opinion on whether or not it makes sense to buy a CTS-V right now. It differs, right? No need to keep restating.

Bruce

I think you're slightly defensive from going back and forth with swamp ad nauseam on other topics. I'm rarely one to belabor a point. Believe me, I'm lazy. I type as little as possible and only try to respond to what you wrote out of respect for you taking the time to write it.