Motortrend: M3 Wins Again! Still Benchmark for RS5 and CTS-V

[cstavaru]

Didn't expect this...imagine what the M3 GTS will do to those cars

[u2b]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eJ_RT5221rk&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eJ_RT5221rk&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/u2b]

[M3_WC]

He really like the Caddy. He said it had the best steering, which is surprising.

His only problem with the CTS-V was the auto tranny. I bet if he had driven them all in manual transmissions, he would have picked a different car for the winner.

[Tee212]

nice thanks for sharing

[dmz]

The Audi TV ad of "3 wins in a row" just became obsolete

[mike-y]

Originally Posted by cstavaru

Didn't expect this...imagine what the M3 GTS will do to those cars

Nothing. the GTS isn't a street legal road car, and probably costs more than all 3 of those cars put together.

[HPIA4v2]

Originally Posted by dmz

The Audi TV ad of "3 wins in a row" just became obsolete

I thought the three-wins were all from C/D. I have a feeling C/D will pick RS5 over F30 M3, why break the streak

[adc]

Originally Posted by srt8/bmw

when looking at a world class sports sedan, which I basically do continually, the V sedan was the easy choice for me. Fastest in every way--track or line, nicest looking, best value. As far as I am concerned, it still sits atop that lofty place...likely until the next M5 is launched.

I have yet to see a published, authoritiative track/lap comparison where an M3 beat a V. Until I do--don't think its out there.

In that case, feast your eyes:
M3 almost 1 sec faster than CTS-V sedan
http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html

CTS-V sedan 1.6 sec faster than M3:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...p_2008-feature
(download the results PDF or click below)
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...5d3c4cd280.pdf

And in case you're wondering about the disparity in times, 0.9sec vs. 1.6sec, it's simply due to the track length - VIR Grand is 4.2 miles vs. 2.3 miles for Laguna Seca. So the relative difference "per mile" is about the same in both cases.

Please don't make the mistake of choosing to ignore results that aren't convenient.


And out of curiosity, how do you figure the CTS-V is the best value? (Won't argue looks as that is highly personal).

there is little factual dispute which car is faster...please don't try to go there. If your talking coupe's you don't have to convince me which is the better overall car....I would take the M.

So please support your assertion with actual facts - until you do, I maintain the 2 cars are very similar on track - with certain tracks favoring one over the other.

I think the M3 seems much slower than it is to you because you are used to the kick from the Caddy's low down torque. The same way a 335i seems just about as fast as the M3 on a casual drive, but is far from it.

You say you've tested the M3, but these dealer test drives don't tell you half the story, especially for a car as smooth and with such a linear torque curve as the M3. It can seem underwhelming on short acquaintance, but it's a totally different story on track, at full tilt.

as for the tranny--so you saying they are wrong about the M3 tranny, because you drove it, but they are right about the V tranny??

Hey all I'm saying is go test drive a DCT - equipped car and compare against yours. If you still think the DCT is clunky or your autobox is nice... then good for you.

[BMW BRAD]

M3 FTW! That fvcking Caddy is ugly, too many angles...... More HP doesnt necessarily = win. Audi, back to the drawing board!

[adc]

Originally Posted by srt8/bmw

I don't have a link to that..I am going by memory--as is the person I am responding to who has no link. I remember that the guy in the M3 was the fastest on day one--of all cars. On day two his times were bested by several ams and at least one pro.

Link to the rescue:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...ies-challenge/

As you can see, the best 3 times are posted by GM's top test driver, a Caddy development driver and a retired racing legend. And then the next one is an M3 driven by an amateur. Nobody else drove the M3, and the rest of non-pro CTS-V times are behind the M3.

I am willing to bet the results would have been different if a pro driver did the laps in both cars.

[335rocket]

couldnt agree more

[Ron1n]

The CTS-V is awesome, make no mistake about it.

[JL 325i]

nice, would the c63 classify in that range of competition?

[TW0929]

"a benchmark is still THE BENCHMARK"

[RingriderM3]

Originally Posted by TW0929

"a benchmark is still THE BENCHMARK"

EXACTLY!
M3...still the champ!!!
but ya gotta feel sorry for Audi...to develop a car to take down the M3....have so many years to do it...and still fall short...yikes!
Someone should lose their job!

[srt8/bmw]

Originally Posted by dizzyj

im confused. coupe you would pick m3, and sedan you would pick ctsv? seems like coupe or sedan, they are the same cars

when I was shopping for a full sized performance sedan, I drove the M5, the CTS-V sedan, the AMG and the Jag.

For me--the choice was easy. The V was the fastest, best braking, and felt by the far the best on Curves/twisties. It also happened to be the lowest price. Unlike many-I also like the interior a lot--although by no means would I say it is better than the M5. (nearly all the reviews at that time also spoke highly of it). If I had been looking for a small/medium sized sports coupe or sedan, I would have easily selected the M3---it is one of the best cars in the world in my opinion and it would have been an easy choice. I wouldn't have put them in the same category (full sized sedan/ medium-small coupe/sedan)

[srt8/bmw]

Originally Posted by adc

In that case, feast your eyes:
M3 almost 1 sec faster than CTS-V sedan
http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html

CTS-V sedan 1.6 sec faster than M3:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...p_2008-feature
(download the results PDF or click below)
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...5d3c4cd280.pdf

And in case you're wondering about the disparity in times, 0.9sec vs. 1.6sec, it's simply due to the track length - VIR Grand is 4.2 miles vs. 2.3 miles for Laguna Seca. So the relative difference "per mile" is about the same in both cases.

Please don't make the mistake of choosing to ignore results that aren't convenient.


And out of curiosity, how do you figure the CTS-V is the best value? (Won't argue looks as that is highly personal).




So please support your assertion with actual facts - until you do, I maintain the 2 cars are very similar on track - with certain tracks favoring one over the other.

I think the M3 seems much slower than it is to you because you are used to the kick from the Caddy's low down torque. The same way a 335i seems just about as fast as the M3 on a casual drive, but is far from it.

You say you've tested the M3, but these dealer test drives don't tell you half the story, especially for a car as smooth and with such a linear torque curve as the M3. It can seem underwhelming on short acquaintance, but it's a totally different story on track, at full tilt.



Hey all I'm saying is go test drive a DCT - equipped car and compare against yours. If you still think the DCT is clunky or your autobox is nice... then good for you.

good points for sure. I will agree with a lot of what you say--the tranny in the M3 is far superior. Hell--the tranny in my 335 is superior to the one in my V.

as for track times--thanks for showing me that--I had never before seen a better time for the M3. I truly do beleive that that would hold true on other tracks, especially the ones with fewer and shorter straightaways. The ring is different--the CTS-v sedan has a better time than the M3 if I read that right, and I will wager that the coupe will equal or beat the sedan's time.

The M3 does not seem slower to me--with the possible exception of a high speed roll. But off the line and in the twisties--its amazing. My 335 is about 3.7 0-60 and runs high elevens low 12s due to mods--but on a track, or even a long straightaway, a stock M3 would TOY with it.

Also--I don't think the CTS-V coupe is the best value. I do think the CTS-v Sedan is, within the class its in, or at least the class I put it in. (full sized performance sedans--world class level).

thats where it gets weird for me--and goes to what I was saying originally. Perhaps your right--by Caddy turning the CTS-V sedan into a coupe, they automatically created a competitor to the M3. Its just weird because they flat out said the sedan was going after (and in my opinion caught and passed) the M5. They create a coupe version (with little changed in wheelbase/weight etc) and now it gets compared to the M3.

all I was saying is that the coupe IS a world class vehicle--capapble of running step for step with the M3 any way you want to measure it. Personally, I would choose the M3 over the CTS-v coupe--nobody (again-my opinion) has captured the chassis tuning like BMW.

But I did, and would again, choose the cts-v sedan over the M5 or any other competitor. Until you drive one on a track, you can't possibly get how well they engineered that car.. Ironically--I had intended on getting the manual tranny, until I got to drive them both on Monticello. For sure--the manual is better--but i was impressed at the quick, firm shifts of the auto, how well it rev matched and held the right gear, and always seemed to be in the right gear. the complaints against it are legit though--the manual mode buttons are on the back of the sterring wheel and are highly ineffectiv and slow, and when you nail the accelerator from a high speed roll (say 100 mph) it hesitates for a second to select the right gear.

trust me--I anxiously await the arrival of the next m5, and as I said, am seriously looking at the 550i (a few mods and we have pretty amazing car).

the point I am making is that the CTS-v Sedan is a world class, possibly best in class sedan. The coupe is world class level as well--and those who have not driven one are to quick to dismiss it based on historical experience with american cars.

[srt8/bmw]

Originally Posted by adc

Link to the rescue:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...ies-challenge/

As you can see, the best 3 times are posted by GM's top test driver, a Caddy development driver and a retired racing legend. And then the next one is an M3 driven by an amateur. Nobody else drove the M3, and the rest of non-pro CTS-V times are behind the M3.

I am willing to bet the results would have been different if a pro driver did the laps in both cars.

just look at ring times. what else can you say?

really? A journalist, driving the CTS-v, was less than half a second behind the M3 time.

common dude--give the V its due....

first sedan to run a sub 8 minute lap.

[srt8/bmw]

Originally Posted by BMW BRAD

M3 FTW! That fvcking Caddy is ugly, too many angles...... More HP doesnt necessarily = win. Audi, back to the drawing board!

looks are highly subjective, although I have to agree with you at least in part--I think the CTS-v coupe is ugly.

In the looks department- igive the win to Audi..sexy as hell IMHO

[Poppin Fresh]

He's making people think that pushing the M button will change the tone of the exhaust similar to Audi's sport button in the rs4?

[adc]

Originally Posted by srt8/bmw

just look at ring times. what else can you say?

really? A journalist, driving the CTS-v, was less than half a second behind the M3 time.

common dude--give the V its due....

first sedan to run a sub 8 minute lap.

I'm definitely giving it its due. But you should know the Ring lap time for the ZCP M3 is 8:00 - within less than 1 second of the CTS-V (7:59.32). Over a 13 miles track, that's just a marginal difference and can be accounted for by weather, temp, track conditions/traffic, whatever. (Believe me, I'd be saying the same thing if the times were reversed).


You could look at it this way - given all the power difference and the serious braking hardware, why doesn't the CTS-V post better times absolutely everywhere? How come the M3 does so much more with so much less?

This is why I'd always prefer an M3 to a CTS-V (sedan or coupe), no matter how much faster it is in a straight line (and it *is* significantly faster, no doubt). But I like cars where everything is in perfect balance - handling, power, grip etc. - and the M3 is a shining example of that philosophy.

[srt8/bmw]

Originally Posted by adc

I'm definitely giving it its due. But you should know the Ring lap time for the ZCP M3 is 8:00 - within less than 1 second of the CTS-V (7:59.32). Over a 13 miles track, that's just a marginal difference and can be accounted for by weather, temp, track conditions/traffic, whatever. (Believe me, I'd be saying the same thing if the times were reversed).


You could look at it this way - given all the power difference and the serious braking hardware, why doesn't the CTS-V post better times absolutely everywhere? How come the M3 does so much more with so much less?

This is why I'd always prefer an M3 to a CTS-V (sedan or coupe), no matter how much faster it is in a straight line (and it *is* significantly faster, no doubt). But I like cars where everything is in perfect balance - handling, power, grip etc. - and the M3 is a shining example of that philosophy.

curious, and excuse my lack of knowledge...what is ZCP M3?

your question is a good one, but its an age old question. The heavier, high HP versus the lighter, more nimble, high reving ??

M3 has a long and elaborate history as the benchmark here, and it is well deserved. Certainly, the CTS-v sedan will never threaten in that regard.

But taken on its own merit....a roughly 4200 lb sedan that can run sub 8 minute lap at the ring in production form, a 2:50 lap at monticello by a raw amateur, and float down the freeway with 4 passengers on a long road trip--that is a spectacular achievment for an american car maker.

It gives a guy like me, who is somewhat forced to have a 4 door sedan, drive a car that has world class performance in every measure, loaded--for $70,000. Thats an option that just wasn't there a year or two ago.

[Poppin Fresh]

Originally Posted by srt8/bmw

It gives a guy like me, who is somewhat forced to have a 4 door sedan, drive a car that has world class performance in every measure, loaded--for $70,000. Thats an option that just wasn't there a year or two ago.

Isn't that why there's an E90(sedan) M3?